Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Disability Living Allowance

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time for processing a disabled living allowance claim; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Information is not collected in that form, but claims to disability living allowance are now being processed at the rate of nearly 9,000 a week in total, and the figure is steadily rising as staff gain experience with the new system.

Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Can he confirm that disability living allowance ensures that help goes to those who really need it, especially to the severely disabled? Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to commit more resources to help the disabled?

Mr. Scott: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. We are determined to ensure that disability living allowance goes to the maximum number of people entitled to it. I am particularly pleased that we have received

153,000 claims for top-up benefits from people who were receiving mobility allowance or attendance allowance under the old system and who are claiming for the other component under DLA.

Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that, as a consequence of the admirable introduction of disability living allowance, claimants of the old mobility and attendance allowances face delays of up to nine months—I can quote instances since the Minister shakes his head —while their claims are processed, and delays of five months for adjustments such as a change from a day rate to a 24-hour rate of attendance allowance, because of the work load? Is he taking steps to increase the number of staff to process the applications, as far too many are outstanding?

Mr. Scott: All those under the age of 65 who are entitled to attendance allowance or mobility allowance will have been automatically transferred to disability living allowance under the new system. As hundreds of thousands of claims are being processed, I should be surprised if there were not an occasional hiccup or delay. If the hon. Gentleman cares to let me have details of any cases, I shall pass them to the Benefits Agency for urgent attention.

Mr. Thurnham: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have an excellent record of spending on the long-term sick and disabled? Since 1979, such spending has increased by 168 per cent. in real terms, or £8.7 billion in cash terms.

Mr. Scott: I can certainly confirm that. We are spending nearly £9 billion a year more than was spent under the last Labour Government and we also have a better target system for benefits for disabled people.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Benefits Agency has told me that targets for delivering attendance allowance were not met either in February or in January? Is not failure to deliver benefits on time to the terminally ill a very serious matter and deeply disturbing? What good is financial help that arrives


posthumously? Can he assure the House that the 2,426 claims that he told me about on 1 May have all now been resolved within the Government's targets?

Mr. Scott: I hope so. Obviously we are anxious that claims for the terminally ill, under the special rules, are met urgently. We were not helped by a surge of claims under that rule—90 per cent. of the people who applied were not entitled to the allowance. In practice, that meant that the claims of some of the people who were entitled to it were delayed.

Community Care

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has concerning the consistency of payment of community care grants and loans between his Department's offices.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Social fund officers are provided with a framework of directions and guidance which allows them to meet highest priority needs wherever they occur. No two people's circumstances are precisely the same. That is why exact comparisons are rarely possible and why social fund officers have to use discretion in determining priorities.

Mr. Lloyd: Is not there something ridiculous and outrageous about a local office refusing one of my constituents a grant that he needs to provide furniture to move into ground-floor accommodation because, following a number of heart bypass operations, his health would be put at risk if he were to continue living in upstairs accommodation? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that he totally disapproves of my constituent's life being threatened because the Department's officers will not provide a grant?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman would have been frank with the House had he informed it that the inspector in that case overturned the decision and made the award that the hon. Gentleman wanted. That shows that our system for reviewing such cases works. The hon. Gentleman would have far more cause to complain if inspectors invariably upheld original decisions rather than put them right—as in this case.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous single payment system led to massive abuse and the grossly inequitable distribution of resources? Will he confirm the social fund budget for the current financial year?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is correct. The previous single payment system was unsustainable and unfair. Eighty per cent. of the payment made under it went to 17 per cent. of the recipients, and there were gross variations in different parts of the country. Under the social fund budget, we have been able to make £300 million available in the current year—a 32 per cent. increase on the previous year.

Compensation Recovery Unit

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to reform the compensation recovery unit.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The compensation recovery unit was set up in 1990. To date it has recovered more than £32 million from negligent employers and other compensators. We have no plans to reform the unit or the scheme as a whole.

Mr. Illsley: Is the Minister aware that the unit is failing to recover the amount projected and that its cost seems by far to outweigh the benefits? Is the Minister further aware that as claimants settle for less than the £2,000 compensation limit, insurance companies are enjoying windfalls because they are not compensating claims at the proper level?

Mr. Burt: The scheme was based on well-established Beveridge principles to which successive Governments have subscribed—such as that there should he no double compensation in accident cases—and on the Public Accounts Committee recommendations, which in 1987 criticised previous arrangements. It is the intention not that moneys should be recovered from individual claimants but that compensators' insurance companies live up to their liabilities. I dispute the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning the unit's cost-effectiveness. By the end of 1991, its running costs were £3.5 million and its receipts were £15.6 million. Receipts will continue to increase, which will benefit taxpayers as a whole, and individual victims of accidents will not be left any worse off.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the scheme's clawback operation is hitting some people unacceptably hard? When compensation of between £10,000 and £15,000 is granted after a long run in the courts before settlement is reached, the net benefit to the individual may be only £3,000 or £4,000. Surely that was not the Government's intention when they introduced the rules. Can the Minister arrange for them to be reviewed in the light of experience?

Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that it was not the intention that the scheme should work in the way that he describes. He and other right hon. and hon. Members do a service in bringing the scheme and its basis to the attention of all involved in personal injury litigation. It is the intention not to recover money from the individual claimant who was the accident victim but to recover it from the insurance company or negligent employer. It is possible for every settlement to take into account the benefits that must be recovered to the state. That is what should occur and if it happens in each and every case, there should be no loss to the individual.

State Pensions

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners were receiving state pension in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991.

Mr. Lilley: Nearly 10 million people received a basic state pension in 1991, as against 8.75 million in 1979. That represents a 14 per cent. increase.

Mr. Field: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. He has been a great friend, whether in his response to Customs and Excise cutters or Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries. This afternoon, I


invite my right hon. Friend to be a friend to the pensioners who receive a 25p increase on reaching their 80th birthday. Will he ordered a review, because surely the £26 million that that costs would be better spent on pensioners who are truly in need, rather than on the clapped-out doctrine of universality? Such a ministerial review would be just as welcome as the money that is to be paid into the Maxwell pension funds that were plundered by that socialist brigand.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, I am afraid that, on this occasion, I have nothing to offer him as good as launching a cutter. Although the 25p increase has been a longstanding arrangement, we have been able to improve the lot of the poorer pensioner by increasing the premiums of income support. In the past three years that has had the effect of increasing by £700 million the amount of money going to less well-off pensioners. I think that that is the way to go.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree with the principle that men and women should receive the same pension and that they should qualify for it at the same age, as is the European Community's objective?

Mr. Lilley: We accept the objective of equalising the pension age. We have put out a discussion document and that discussion period is due to end at the end of the month. I approach with an open mind all the different options as to how this can be achieved. I should also make it clear, as a number of people imagine that agreement on a particular age will be achieved rapidly and that it will be implemented immediately, that every other movement to an equal age or an equal pivotal age, has taken a very long time to introduce. People of 59 years of age need not think that a change will influence them next year, and the same applies to those who are 64.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to pensioners and their incomes is inflation, which is an indiscriminate and cruel tax? During the last year of the previous Labour Government, inflation ate into almost a quarter of pensioners' real incomes.

Mr. Lilley: That is correct. In fact, in one year, it was more than a quarter, as 27 per cent. of savings were wiped out by inflation. There can be no more cruel or unjust tax than that. By contrast, our record has been exemplary, as we have increased the living standards of pensioners overall. During our period in government, living standards have risen by 34 per cent. in real terms, which is five times as rapid as the rate of increase under the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Allen: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Question Time? He has an opportunity that falls to very few men—to make millions of women happy. Will he tell the House, and the millions of female pensioners who are approaching pension age and those who are already drawing their pensions, what his plans are for the pension age for women? Earlier, he said that he had an open mind on that, so will he say whether that open mind includes a pension age for women of 63 or of 65? Many millions of women are anxious to hear his answer and I invite the Secretary of State to reassure them.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman offers something even more enticing than launching cutters. I assure him that I

have an open mind which embraces all the options, more than are included in our discussion document. We have outlined a number of options for equalisation at the ages of 60, 63 and 65, and for the periods of retirement at which people would either retire early with a lower rate of pension or later with a higher rate of pension. All the options are being considered. Because we have asked people to tell us their ideas during the discussion period, it would be foolish of me to pre-empt that discussion and the benefits that we will obtain from people's contributions to it by making a premature decision.

Social Fund

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the present working of the social fund; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount made available by his Department in the current financial year for (a) social fund loan payments and (b) community care grants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to meet the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the social fund.

Mr. Scott: In 1989, we commissioned a major study from the university of York's social policy research unit into the social fund. When considering its report, which will be published shortly, we shall also take into account the recent report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the views of other bodies, including the Child Poverty Action Group, which is due to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on 7 July. We all welcome him to the Dispatch Box today.
We routinely monitor the fund. We have made a number of improvements and have injected significant additional resources. This year, we have substantially increased the discretionary budget. We have provided £211 million for loans and £91 million for community care grants. The total discretionary budget of £302 million is almost £75 million higher than the April 1991 figure.

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the comments that have already been made by the Campaign for the Homeless and Roofless—CHAR—to which many hon. Members belong? It has said that the present funding and the way in which the scheme works are totally inadequate for people coming out of institutional care or bed-and-breakfast accommodation and trying to build a new life in suitable accommodation. The fund as it now works does not meet their needs. Will the Minister assure the House that those views will be taken into account?

Mr. Scott: Indeed, there is little doubt that they will be taken into account, as I was a founder member of the parliamentary panel for CHAR and last week attended an important seminar close to the House, where the campaign's views were expressed vehemently. Of course I shall take its views into account, but the more dispassionate views of the social policy research unit will also play a part in our thinking.

Mrs. Ewing: In announcing the increase in the discretionary element of that budget, what estimate has the Minister made of the reduction in the number of people who are refused a loan? For example, last year 19,000 people were refused a loan because they were too poor to repay the debt. If we want to target money to the poorest sections of society, we should ensure that those who are most in need are guaranteed some form of assistance. In addition to the reports that the Minister has already mentioned, will he take account of the effective reports by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorites?

Mr. Scott: Of course I shall take account of that. The number of people who are refused because of inability to pay is a mere fraction of the overall number refused. The majority are refused because they do not meet the basic criteria for the fund.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister encourage his hon. Friend to take the Secretary of State with him when he meets the Child Poverty Action Group? When he meets it, he will hear that the number of rejections for loans has doubled since 1988 and that the number of rejected community care applications—which are important—now exceeds 70 per cent. Precisely how do the Government intend to respond to the various reports, including that of their advisory committee? In particular, how can the Government justify any social security system that excludes the right of appeal?

Mr. Scott: First, there is a review system within the scheme, which is a speedier and more effective way of handling first-level requests for reconsidering cases. In the longer run, there is the social fund inspectorate. The Social Security Advisory Committee paid tribute to the independence of the social fund inspectorate in its consideration of appeals. We have responded to the increased demands on the social fund by providing the extra resources that I announced earlier. The hon. Gentleman will know that the fund for his local office was increased by nearly 16 per cent. for the current year, so we are responding to pressures on the fund. However, in response to a variety of reports that either have been or will be produced, we shall look again at its future.

Mr. Bowden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an element of lottery and luck in whether an application is accepted? If there are pressures on the local social security budget, it depends at what time of year an application is made, and that can vary from one area to another. Will he look at that problem and ensure that it is levelled out between social security areas?

Mr. Scott: In any scheme that depends on discretion there are bound to be differences between offices about apparently similar cases. They may not always be exactly the same. Obviously we are anxious to ensure that pressures on local budgets are dealt with, sometimes within the year, but, more generally, as we deal with the balance between demand and need in our year-on-year allocations.

Mr. Pickles: Given the sort of claims made on the social fund, it is extremely important that decisions are made quickly. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the present arrangements whereby most decisions are made within a few days will continue? Will he ensure that

the position is monitored and that decisions are normally made within a few days, particularly those related to reviews?

Mr. Scott: We are conscious that the social fund meets exceptional needs and circumstances outwith the normal provisions of the social security system. Therefore, we want speedy decisions—those on crisis loans are normally made within 24 hours.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the York university study provides a valuable opportunity to have a fundamental review of how the social fund works? From what he said earlier, am I to understand that that report will be produced before the summer recess and that the Government will give their response to it within that time? Will he consider the recent work done by the Policy Studies Institute that clearly shows that when the social fund was orginally introduced in 1985–86, about 2 million families were dependent on long-term benefits over a substantial period, whereas the most recent figures for 1988 show 4.5 million families in that position?

Mr. Scott: As the hon. Gentleman says, there have been and will be a number of reports and representations on the future of the social fund and the Government want to consider all those once they have been produced. Yes, I would expect the York university report to be available before the summer recess.

Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister be more positive today? I am sure that he is aware that the vast numbers of applications to the social fund are from young and homeless people seeking to set up their first homes and are for household items. Many of those people cannot afford to repay the cost of such items from the meagre income support that the Government give them. Does he support the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee to change the scheme to ensure that non-repayable start-up grants are given to such people? They could then buy essential items such as beds and cookers and would not have to stay in inadequate accommodation. They could set up their first home without the burden of debt that they would incur if they had to use their benefit to buy such items.

Mr. Scott: At the risk of repeating myself, we want to look at all the reports and the various recommendations that they contain. In 44,000 cases people who applied for loans were given community care grants instead.

Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have no plans to change the basis for payment of the Christmas bonus for pensioners.

Mr. Atkinson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the situation experienced under the last Labour Government, the Christmans bonus will be paid this year? Does she accept that, as the bonus has remained at the same value for so long, it has become increasingly difficult to justify it in cost-effective terms? Therefore, will she seek


to review the value of the bonus with a view either to substantially increasing it or, as I favour, to merge it with a substantially increased state retirement pension?

Miss Widdecombe: I have great pleasure in confirming that the Christmas bonus will be paid this year. The reason that it will be paid is that the Conservative Government made it a statutory entitlement rather than a discretionary payment, thus avoiding for ever the situation that occurred in 1975 and 1976 when, despite the grand promises of the Labour party about what it would do for pensioners, the Labour party did not manage to pay any Christmas bonus for those two years. I well understand what my hon. Friend says about the value of the bonus having declined, but to restore it to its original level would cost £720 million. My hon. Friend should reflect that that equates well with the £700 million per year that the Government have targeted towards poorer pensioners—a better use of resources than the universal uprating of benefit.

Mr. F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that pensioners have made a magnificent contribution to this country and should be sharing in any increase in prosperity? As the Government have broken the link between pensions and earnings, how are pensioners to enjoy any of the extra prosperity? Is this not a good opportunity for the Government to restore the value of the Christmas bonus?

Miss Widdecombe: Pensioners have enjoyed the benefit of the increased prosperity to such an extent that the value of their total incomes has risen by 34 per cent. under the present Government. Under the last Labour Government, it rose by a mere 3 per cent. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is in the best position to lecture us about helping pensioners to share in prosperity. More pensioners than ever before now own their own homes, have savings in addition to their pensions and have occupational pensions. They are sharing in prosperity—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time—and answer time.

Family Credit

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the recent reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.

Mr. Burt: We expect a substantial number of families to gain from the change to family credit introduced in April. So far, around 35,000 families have claimed it as a result of the Government's reducing the minimum number of hours required to 16 per week.

Mr. Hague: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there have been some 2.5 million successful claims for family credit since its introduction in 1988? Is that not an encouraging statistic? The further improvement will be welcomed, because it opens up the benefit to more families on low incomes, while still not creating a disincentive to work.

Mr. Burt: Yes, the change will be widely welcomed, particularly by lone parents. Many lone parents want to work and the change will make it more worth their while to do so. My hon. Friend is also correct in regard to the

number of claims, which has increased from some 243,000—for the equivalent family income supplement—to some 350,000.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that the take-up rate for the benefit is only about 50 per cent., although when the benefit was introduced Ministers boasted about a projected 90 per cent. take-up rate? When will the Government improve the rate, or are they content with such an abysmally low figure?

Mr. Burt: In terms of expenditure, the take-up is about 65 per cent. What the Government can boast of is the fact that the amount provided in family credit is about double the amount that was provided in family income supplement. That is all taking place in the context of a social security budget which has increased by 52 per cent. in real terms. That is the extent to which we have improved on anything that the last Labour Government was able to do for people.

Mr. Willetts: Will my hon. Friend confirm that four times more families now receive family credit than received family income supplement in 1979? Does that not represent considerable progress in the reduction of disincentives to work?

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes the point very effectively. Those who receive family credit are paid, on average, about £35 per week, whereas the equivalent family income supplement was about £15 per week. We have a great commitment to low-income working families and family credit is the best-known benefit with which we assist them; the success of the scheme over the years shows how important it is to many families.

Mr. Meacher: The recent change involves a huge disincentive to work, because the loss of income support passported benefit—particularly mortgage interest cover—far outweighs any gain in family credit. Does the Minister really consider this an advance? As a result of the change, 80,000 claimants in need will lose free school meals and access to the social fund, and those without children will receive nothing. Is this not yet another own goal by the Government? Short-sighted cuts in public expenditure will serve only to deepen the dependency culture that the Government are supposed to be against.

Mr. Burt: The own goal has been scored by the hon. Gentleman, who has reminded the House of the success of family credit and the fact that more people have been transferred from income support to family credit as a result of the change. Those who previously gained through income support have not lost, because their position has been protected, and the increase in the number who have come on to family credit over the years—far more people receive it than received support through the Labour Government's schemes—shows how popular and effective our scheme has been.

Pensioners (Mortgages)

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners are owner-occupiers and have paid off their mortgage.

Miss Widdecombe: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that nearly half of all pensioners own their own homes. Ninety-four per cent. of home-owning pensioners have no outstanding mortgage at all.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that nearly all pensioners who own their homes have no mortgages, and therefore possess a valuable asset which gives them extra security in their old age? Would she care to compare provision in this country with that in the rest of Europe? Most British pensioners receive a flat rate, regardless of income, whereas in other European countries low earnings ultimately mean much lower pensions.

Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her question and can indeed confirm that 94 per cent. of pensioners who own their homes have no mortgage. My hon. Friend raises a very important point with regard to the rest of Europe. Despite what is often said by Opposition Members about how good European pensions are, the fact remains that in France and Germany the pension is earnings related, so somebody who has been a low earner will get a low pension. Perhaps even more important, we alone give a woman a pension in her own right.

Maxwell Pensions

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the additional cost to date to his Department in connection with the collapse of the Maxwell pension funds.

Mr. Lilley: My Department stands to meet the costs of guaranteed minimum pensions for the 240 Headington plan pensioners who have not been paid their May or June pensions. The amounts payable are currently being assessed.

Mr. Eastham: Does the Minister appreciate the sheer misery of the 32,000 people who have been treated so shabbily? Is it not about time that the Government faced up to their responsibilities? I refer to the behaviour of the Department of Trade and Industry and some of the banks. Is the Minister aware that other companies that have been buying and selling pension schemes ought to be brought to book?

Mr. Lilley: I do indeed recognise the plight of the Maxwell pensioners and will be making a statement after Question Time, if I catch your eye, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the numbers involved. As I said in my "Dear colleagues" letter, 35,000 people have pensions or are members of pension funds within the Maxwell group. About 15,000 of those people are guaranteed their pensions by Mirror Group Newspapers. Of the other 20,000, some 9,000 are retired and 11,000 are future pensioners. I mention those figures to give an idea of the scale of the problem.

Mr. Rathbone: What are the Government doing to recoup some of the costs from the Maxwell family and other companies? My constituents and many others are fed up with the way the Maxwell family seems able to go on living some sort of high life elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Lilley: I am certain that my hon. Friend's point will be echoed throughout the House. It is up to the liquidators to trace the assets that have been dissipated, and they will naturally be looking in that quarter as well as others.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the extra cost to the Secretary of State's Department, would it not be prudent for the Department to draw up legislation to stop the stealing of pension funds and their removal from these shores to offshore areas such as Liechtenstein? The Secretary of State may recall that the trend was started many years ago by Duncan Sandys, who shifted money from this country to the Cayman islands—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go into too much detail, thus anticipating a statement that is to be made later. I should like a direct question from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Cryer: I started, Madam Speaker, by asking the Secretary of State whether his Department would produce legislation to stop the illegal removal of funds from this country to offshore islands.

Mr. Lilley: Stealing pension funds has always been against the law.

Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Governments of Switzerland and Liechtenstein, where much of the pensioners' money has been salted away, that if they want good relations with this country they had better make it clear to their financial institutions, which have profited from dealings with the Maxwell family, that they must meet their legal and moral obligations to the pensioners?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a most interesting question, but it is totally out of order. Would the Secretary of State like to make some comment?

Mr. Lilley: I am not sure that I can keep my answer in order, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's excellent point will be brought to the attention of the relevant powers. I will ensure that it is.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things about which the Maxwell pensioners action group, which is lobbying today, is deeply aggrieved is that it is having to spend more than £1 million per month on legal and administrative fees to recover the stolen assets? That money cannot be used to pay pensions because, legally, advisers' bills must be settled before any benefit can be distributed. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those bills include 17.5 per cent. VAT, so the Government are getting their cut from the pensions as well? Will he therefore accept the proposal—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this question relates to additional costs to the Minister's Department. It is very narrow and I ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to relate his question to the narrow point of additional costs to the Department.

Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State accept the suggestion that the pension rights should be assigned to him and that he should pay the pensions and then recover the costs by pursuing the banks? If that was right for Barlow Clowes, is it not right for the Maxwell pensioners, who are far more deserving?

Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to put that question—in order—in response to my statement later this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church Security

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what advice is currently being offered by the Commissioners on the matter of security in churches.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): None—the Commissioners are primarily responsible for the financial support of the clergy while responsibility for parish churches rests with the parochial church council and church wardens. However, I can advise the hon. Gentleman that the General Synod's Council for the Care of Churches offers advice on security and has published a booklet entitled "Church Security—A Simple Guide", a copy of which I shall send him.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I find it peculiarly nasty that people should steal from unattended churches, especially as a number of the stolen artefacts are going abroad. It is a pity that the good Lord cannot look after his own gear a little better—the odd thunderbolt from on high might bring the villains to book. Is it not possible to draw the Commissioners' attention to the need for co-ordinated action across the Church and, indeed, internationally as a number of the artefacts being stolen go abroad?

Mr. Alison: Yes, it is worth investigating whether we can do more to safeguard churches. Local churches could consider an equivalent to the neighbourhood watch scheme. The problem—it is a subtle problem—is that the best way of keeping burglars out of churches might be to get them into churches.

Clergymen

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergymen are (a) owners of the parson's freehold and (b) licensed priests in charge; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison: As at 31 December 1991, there were some 6,500 rectors and vicars with freehold office and nearly 1,300 priests in charge and team vicars.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the gradual reduction in the number of parsons who own their freehold, and does he agree that the authorities probably intend that that should be so? Does he further agree that we do not want a bunch of vicars who are all yes-men, which we shall have if the freehold is abolished as it appears that it will be?

Mr. Alison: I sympathise with much of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the clause relating to parsons' freehold, although he will understand that the General Synod is considering the terms and conditions of the incumbent's basis of work. Part of the difficulty is that frequent requests have been made by hon. Members on

both sides of the House for some way of estimating the productivity of parsons, which can be done only if the freehold is abolished.

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church of England clergy who are not yet retired (a) hold the living of their parish with no required retirement age, (b) hold the living of their parish, with a required retirement age, (c) are not instituted to any benefice, but only to a limited contractual term of office and (d) minister by virtue of other arrangements.

Mr. Michael Alison: In the parochial stipendiary ministry, of the the approximate 6,500 vicars and rectors with freehold office, nearly 6,000 must retire no later than age 70, although the pensionable age is 65, whereas the remainder have no required retirment age. There are about 1,200 team rectors and vicars with leasehold office and 2,800 priests in charge, assistant curators and parish deacons.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I realise that this is a rather technical matter. Would I be right in suggesting that, contrary to the view suggested by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), it would be cheaper and would offer better value for money—not for individual priests, but the Church of England as a whole—to move to a system whereby everyone has a contractually fixed period, as opposed to the traditional system whereby people are inducted for life and cannot be moved? If so, is that not the right way for the Church of England to proceed so as to avoid unnecessary expenditure based on historical arrangements?

Mr. Alison: I do not honestly think that there would be measurable financial advantage in changing the basis of the freehold purely in terms of the cost of pensions, partly because the flexibility which already exists between the ages of 65 and 70 gives a continuing option to a number of clergy to do what they want and partly because if there were no freeholds the determination of their retirement age would fall entirely into the hands of the bishops who had licensed the clergy. Also, each case for retirement will be determined on its merits, probably with a good deal of flexibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Judicial Delays

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what efforts his Department is making to reduce court waiting hours.

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he proposes to reduce delay in civil litigation.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Government are currently implementing a programme of reforms in the civil courts designed to meet representations by the civil justice review for reducing delays and costs, promoting simplicity and accessibility, and updating procedures. A number of initiatives are also being taken, aimed at reducing delays and waiting times in the Crown court and the magistrates courts.

Mr. Arnold: I welcome my hon. Friend on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, especially as I understand that this is the first question answered in the House by the Lord Chancellor's Department and I wish him well in his programme of reforms to which he referred. What progress is being made on the situation in the courts in northern Kent?

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, which are much appreciated. I will answer his supplementary question in the terms in which it was asked. Cases in the county courts in north Kent—at Dartford, Sittingbourne and Gravesend—are currently heard within 50 working days of being ready for trial at the Medway county court trial centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as an assiduous constituency Member, will be keeping an eye on that performance.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why does the Parliamentary Secretary ignore the repeated representations of the Law Society about the chronic delays in the county courts in London and the south-east? Is not the problem the fact that the Government failed properly to fund and resource the county courts following their increased jurisdiction as a result of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990? Is not the problem further aggravated by the fact that the Government have orchestrated a recession which has caused an enormous growth in debt collection and repossessions through the county courts, in turn leading to a great choking of the system?

Mr. Taylor: No, the answer and the remedy lie elsewhere, in following the recommendations of the civil justice review body. The key to the better dispatch of civil justice lies in matching the nature and weight of the case to the authority of the court to deal with it. There has been a great deal of decanting of court cases from the High Court to the county court and, in particular, to county court centres. The number of trials disposed of in county courts has risen from 9,000 in 1988 to more than 25,000 in 1991 while waiting times have been maintained at an average of 45 days.

Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that improving the administration of both civil and criminal justice is not just a question of increasing resources, which has taken place in the past 12 years with a huge increase in the number of circuit judges and so forth, but a question of setting performance targets for courts so that the public can know which courts are most successful?

Mr. Taylor: Certainly I agree with that. In the Crown court, it is necessary to improve the pre-trial dispatch of business to prevent, wherever possible, cracked trials. The future in the magistrates courts lies in best practice, in the Government's White Paper and in block listing so that everyone does not turn up at 10 am, which means that some people wait until the end of the day.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that if one does not provide litigants with legal aid as speedily and appropriately as possible, one builds up a backlog? Does he agree with the Lord Chancellor's circular that the way in which cases are banked up has delayed matters, just as the failure to grant expert witnesses and the failure to grant civil legal aid to most people have done? In all, there is no justice in this country because the Conservative party has sought to destroy the whole litigation system.

Mr. Taylor: That is a fairly sour mouthful to ask me to accept, and I do not accept it. I will say a little more about the circular later.

Criminal Legal Aid

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is proposed to introduce fixed fees for criminal legal aid.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Standard fees have been in operation for some criminal legal aid cases in the Crown court since October 1986. It is proposed to introduce a standard fee system later this year for most criminal legal aid cases heard in the magistrates court. An independent survey is to be conducted to give guidance, not least on the evaluation of standard fees.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department's decision to introduce fixed fees was arrived at before the recent cases of miscarriage of justice came to light? Will he give an assurance to the House that any recommendation by the royal commissioners against the decision will be immediately honoured?

Mr. Taylor: The proposals for standard fees—I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind if I correct him—were first mooted in 1987 and the Lord Chancellor has said that they will be cost neutral to the profession when they are introduced. I personally share the view that standard fees reward those who can do the work proficiently and with dispatch. The present system of payment by the hour or by the item can fall down by rewarding the slow and inefficient and penalising those who operate concisely, effectively and well. That cannot be in the public interest and it cannot be in the interest of taxpayers. We must remember that in every case, although the taxpayer does not appear as a party on the face of the action, sure enough, the taxpayer is involved.

Mr. Morgan: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that one of the ways in which to defray any additional costs which may arise from the change in the system of reward for criminal investigations could be to reform the green form system of paying legal aid as well, as the present system is wide open to the defrauding of the taxpayer by a small minority of bent solicitors? Does he also agree—this is the Lord Chancellor's responsibility—that the slowness of the investigations branch of the Legal Aid Board and the antiquated nature of the computer is holding up all the fraud squad investigations into the small minority of solicitors who have been exploiting the system in the past few years?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that I was studying his written question on this very subject this morning. There are some 27 cases of fraud on green form and, clearly, that is totally unacceptable. On the other hand, I gather than the hon. Gentleman's complaint related to computer delays may not be found to be substantiated. Certainly, there are cases of fraud and that is quite unacceptable—as, indeed, is the total amount that we are paying on legal aid at the moment. I should like the House to know that gross expenditure on all legal aid was £1.15 billion in 1991–92—a third more than in the previous year and more than twice the gross expenditure four years ago, in 1987 –88.

Calder Valley Courthouses

Sir Donald Thompson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to keep two old courthouses in Calder Valley.

Mr. John M. Taylor: rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I apologise for keeping the House waiting.
The Lord Chancellor has received an appeal from Calderdale borough council against the Calderdale magistrates courts committee determination to close two courthouses. No decision has yet been reached.

Sir Donald Thompson: I have invited my hon. Friend to come to Calder Valley with me to look at what is happening there. Does he agree that, although what goes on in a courthouse from day to day has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament concerned, where a courthouse is situated, and who attends it, has everything to do with that Member of Parliament, who is right to use every means available to ensure that that courthouse remains?

Mr. Taylor: I concede the general point and, in particular, I concede that my hon. Friend is an assiduous constituency Member of Parliament. I should tell him and the whole House that magistrates courts can be closed only on a local recommendation of the local magistrates courts committee, and that that decision can be officially opposed only by the local paying authority. Only at that point does the Lord Chancellor have any locus or status in these matters; until then, he does not. The initiation of a closure is local.

Legal Aid

Mr. Byers: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will withdraw the recent circular sent to justices' clerks concerning the proofs of wages paid or benefits received which are required from claimants before their applications can be considered.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The circular was issued in response to concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee and other bodies to the effect that the regulations governing the grant of criminal legal aid were not always being properly followed. The circular was not intended to represent any change of policy. The Lord Chancellor and I have already agreed that consideration should be given to altering the regulations. In all the circumstances, and in the light of the widespread concern that has been expressed about paragraph 10 of the circular, the Lord Chancellor and I have decided that paragraph 10 should be withdrawn. A notice to that effect will be issued as soon as possible.

Mr. Byers: I welcome that most constructive reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that when he considers issuing new guidelines, he will consult all interested parties? We share a common view that we need to achieve value for money, but we also believe that those seeking legal representation should have appropriate legal representation immediately so that they can face the courts. Will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House today what he would say to a defendant remanded in custody? How would that defendant have access to the 13 weeks pay slips necessary to qualify for legal aid?

Mr. Taylor: What I have just said about the withdrawal of paragraph 10 should have met the critical question with which the hon. Gentleman concluded his inquiry. The whole House should know that, early in April, the Lord Chancellor's Department could not look lightly on the fact that the audit of the Department for last year had been qualified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that the Department had been heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee. To do nothing to try to tighten up the system would have been a neglect of duty.

Mr. Fraser: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unique appointment and remind him—I am sure he will follow me—that he owes his first duty to justice and principle, above the interests of party and, incidentally, the Treasury. By withdrawing paragraph 10 of the circular on legal aid, the Minister has made a good start because that paragraph could have caused many injustices, and we are glad that he has withdrawn it. I hope that he will look in a similar light at fixed fees in magistrates courts and perhaps refer that issue to the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks. I shall, of course, take fully into account the fact that my duty is to the administration of justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about paragraph 10 and I will bear in mind what he said about standard fees. However, in the spirit of candour that is appropriate in this House, I am bound to say that I am rather attracted by a regime of standard fees.

Industrial Tribunals (Legal Aid)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will make legal aid available for claimants in industrial tribunals.

Mr. John M. Taylor: No, Madam Speaker. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that green form advice is available in preparation for tribunals and lay representation is, of course, available in various forms.

Mr. Janner: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Before he settles too deeply into the Establishment, will he reconsider the issue? However complex, crucial or important a case is to a claimant, surely it is wrong that he or she has no right to legal aid? Will it not get worse when the Government—absolutely rightly—increase the jurisdiction of the tribunals by transferring to them many cases involving contracts of employment and disputes which are at present, wrongly, dealt with by courts?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman has a well-merited reputation in industrial law. I remember many years ago listening to instructional tapes recorded by him in an earlier stage of industrial law. However, he would acknowledge that the whole intention of tribunals was to achieve a greater degree of informality than the courts. It is common for both applicants and respondents to present their own cases in those proceedings and there is certainly no requirement for the parties to be legally represented. I remain conscious of the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman argued. However, we must all accept that the public purse is not bottomless and it is unrealistic to think in terms of the legal aid budget growing even faster than it is already.

Pensions Review

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the framework of law and regulation of occupational pension schemes and about the plight of Maxwell pensioners. Rarely in the catalogue of crime has there been a fraud as callous and despicable as the pillaging of pension funds by Robert Maxwell. It raises two questions. First, how can we minimise the loss and anguish faced by the pensioners? Secondly, how can we ensure that such a crime never recurs?
The whole House will share a deep concern for the distress Maxwell pensioners face as a result of this appalling crime. Unfortunately, it is still not possible to be certain of its full impact on pensioners. At present there is a gap of some £350 million between the assets which remain secure in the various Maxwell pension schemes and common fund and their liabilities to present and future pensioners.
The assets siphoned off through the Maxwell private companies seem to be largely beyond recovery, but over £200 million of assets were given to banks and others as security against loans. It is not yet clear how much of this will eventually be recoverable by the trustees.
Mirror Group Newspapers has agreed to meet the liabilities to its 15,000 pensioners and employee members. Pensioners of Maxwell private companies now in administration have no such security. Most schemes are continuing to pay pension from available assets, but the Headington Pension Plan has not yet been able to pay its 240 pensioners their pensions for May and June. Moreover, the Maxwell Communication Works Scheme has said that from 1 July it will be able to pay some 4,000 of its pensioners only 30 per cent. of their entitlement.
Over the longer term, the priority must be to identify, locate and establish ownership of the stolen assets and secure their return. The liquidators are actively pursuing all legal avenues for the recovery of stolen assets. That will no doubt include appropriate legal action against any members of the Maxwell family or others involved in transactions which may be found to be unlawful.
However, this is not simply a legal issue. Over the years, many financial institutions had dealings with Maxwell companies from which they profited handsomely. Such transactions were perfectly honourable. However, the institutions involved may well feel some moral obligation to assist the pensioners who have so cruelly lost at Maxwell's hands.
Moreover, other financial institutions, too, may recognise the value to them of maintaining faith in the integrity of occupational pension funds. I want to make it possible for them to make some tangible contribution to helping the pensioners defrauded by Robert Maxwell.
Expediting the return of assets and securing contributions from the private sector will be a complex and lengthy process. The Government may be able to give it an impetus. I am therefore immediately setting up a special unit in my Department to take that forward.
The unit will work alongside the trustees and others seeking to secure the return of assets and their equitable distribution between schemes. The unit will do all that it can to speed up the return of assets. The Bank of England

supports the foundation of the unit. The unit will also help to set up a trust into which voluntary contributions from the private sector will be paid.
Those steps will help to minimise the shortfall in the long term. But there is a particularly acute problem in the short term. That is not just because the process of identifying, establishing ownership and securing return of assets is an immensely complex and lengthy one. But, of the £230 million of secure assets, some £100 million are locked in the common investment fund since, unfortunately, it has not been settled how they should be allocated between the nine different Maxwell schemes. The trustees and liquidators have now agreed to accept the court ruling on the allocation of assets. But it will take some months before that ruling is given. Meanwhile, those assets are frozen.
No Government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. But I do think it right to help to ease the unique short-term pressures that pensioners face while frozen assets are being released and progress is made in restoring and obtaining other funds.
I therefore propose to provide temporary, emergency funding to help Maxwell schemes which are unable to maintain pension payments over the next few months.
The funding that I am making available will amount to £2.5 million in the form of repayable grants. The intention is that the grants should be repaid eventually, provided that the assets of the pension funds are sufficient to permit that without detriment to their members.
There is one final measure which may be of marginal benefit to some Maxwell pension schemes, and that is to bring in regulations to implement the provision of the Social Security Act 1990 which will make any deficiency of pension funds that have to be wound up a debt on the employer company. I shall do that at an early date. It will therefore apply to pension funds of the Maxwell companies. I would not wish to raise the hopes of Maxwell scheme members that they will stand to gain greatly from any pay-out to ordinary creditors of their former Maxwell employer companies which are now in administration. Nevertheless, we are committed to implement that provision and I feel it right to do so now.
The Maxwell fraud is shocking because it is so exceptional. Most private pension schemes have served their members well. They have expanded considerably over the past decade. This Government are committed to reinforce their role. They provide substantial additional benefits to those in retirement, and have contributed significantly to the growth in pensioners' incomes which we have seen over the past decade. More than half of all employees are members of such schemes. We are determined to ensure that their standing is maintained and enhanced, and the security of their members protected.
The Maxwell affair has focused attention on the whole framework of pension scheme law. It has raised questions about issues, many of which may have played no part in that crime, but which none the less need answering. I therefore agree with the Select Committee on Social Security that there should be a thorough review of this area.
I propose accordingly to implement our manifesto pledge by establishing an independent committee with the following terms of reference:
to review the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate, taking into account


the rights and interests of scheme members, pensioners and employers; to consider in particular the status and ownership of occupational pension funds and the accountability and roles of trustees, fund managers, auditors, and pension scheme advisers; and to make recommendations.
I believe that those terms of reference will enable the Committee to consider all the issues raised by the Select Committee in its valuable report. I am pleased that Professor Roy Goode QC, Professor of English Law at Oxford University, has agreed to chair the review. I shall announce the names of members of his committee shortly.
The committee will invite evidence from all interested parties and hold a number of public hearings. I have asked Professor Goode to report within 12 months or earlier if possible. If the committee finds changes which should be initiated urgently I have asked it to report them to me before it concludes its work.
I should emphasise that the committee will not be asked to carry out an investigation of the Maxwell affair. That involves crime and fraud and is rightly being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have initiated a wide-ranging, open and independent review of pension law. I have taken exceptional steps to ease the acute short-term pressures on some pension schemes and their pensioners. I have established a unit to mobilise support for the pensioners from those in the City who recognise an interest or obligation towards them. I believe these measures are imaginative and responsible. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome the fact that today's lobby by the Maxwell pensioners and tomorrow's Opposition day debate and vote to highlight their plight have finally jolted the Department of Social Security out of its six-month long stupor? This is the first positive action by the Government since the Maxwell scandal broke nine months ago and the Opposition welcome it—as far as it goes.
In essence, the statement tells us few details except that the rescue package of £2.5 million amounts to a derisory 0.5 per cent. of the stolen assets. Why will the package cover fewer than half of the pensioners at risk? Why will not every one of the 12,500 pensioners who have already or are due soon to lose all or a substantial part of their
pension receive compensation? Why will not every pensioner who retires in the coming months also be covered? Will the compensation payment top up the pensions of those covered to 100 per cent.? If not, how much will pensioners receive?
What does a few months mean? Does it mean to October, to December, or what? Why is the right hon. Gentleman imposing such a short and arbitrary deadline when the recovery of the assets and any litigation that may ensue may take far longer than that? Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's temporary relief will leave pensioners cruelly exposed long before a final settlement is in place?
Is it not clear that the Government's commitment of some £2.5 million falls far short of the extent of their liability since the Department of Trade and Industry issued a licence under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1958 to a private Maxwell company which Robert Maxwell then used as a channel to steal the pensioners' money? Is not the £2.5 million offered in the statement to pensioners insultingly meagre when compared with the £160 million offered to Barlow Clowes

shareholders who chose to risk offshore investment in search of speculative profit? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this finger-in-the-dyke exercise will not do as it bears no relation to the full extent and depth of the Government's moral and legal responsibility in the matter?
We welcome the belated announcement that section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 will finally, after a delay of two years, be implemented. But will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will merely make the pensioners unsecured creditors while other preferential creditors will remain ahead of them in the queue?
On the establishment of a commission to review pension fund law, is he aware that the Opposition have repeatedly asserted that such law should be reformed, and that we regard a year's delay as excessive? Is not there already sufficient understanding of the law's deficiencies, and a consensus as to the remedies, to allow some emergency measures to provide protection this year to every member of an occupational pension fund?
Is the Secretary of State aware of the almost universal support for the establishment of an adequate compensation fund, as already exists in every other major western country?
Following the Barber judgment, which established that pension contributions are deferred pay and are therefore the property of their members, will he accept that European law requires that at least 50 per cent. of trustee places should go to scheme members, employees and pensioners?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that there is no need to wait for a year, and risk another pension scandal, to implement the important protections of a compensation fund and a reconstitution of trustee boards? They could and should he done now.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for his welcome, albeit grudging, of the scheme. He describes the package as derisory. He does not seem to realise that it deals with art acute short-term pressure, unique to this case. It so happens that funds, which have already been discovered in the hands of the central fund, are frozen. We need time for the money to be released and the measure will create time for that and for progress to be made on securing additional funds, which were previously stolen, and contributions from the City.
I am advised that the amount is sufficient to deal with that period when we have acute short-term pressure. The amount will be handled by the unit, probably in negotiation with the most badly affected schemes. It will be up to them to decide how much they top up pensions in the interim, with our help.

Mr. Meacher: What if it takes longer?

Mr. Lilley: I believe that the court will take a matter of months to rule and there is no reason to suppose that the case will take longer. It would be foolish to base our judgment on hypotheses rather than the facts before us.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West is always willing to make lavish promises and has elsewhere promised to bail out all those affected. It is widely recognised that no Government can accept a liability to reimburse all victims of fraud and theft, nor is there any question of Government accepting responsibility.


I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West recognises and welcomes our implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990. I confirm that his interpretation is correct and that, as Parliament decreed in passing that Act, it will make pension funds ordinary creditors of the schemes. That is why I made it clear that one should not place excessive expectations on that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the 12-month duration of the review as too long. I made it clear that that is the maximum and I have asked the Committee to report in a shorter time if it can and, if it comes across issues on which we should take immediate action, to report while carrying out its inquiry.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West concluded by saying that we should introduce a scheme immediately to provide 50 per cent. employee representation on pension funds. In all of the Maxwell pension funds, 50 per cent. of their trustees were employees. That did not prevent the crisis. None the less, we shall be open to suggestions from Professor Goode's review on anything that should be done in the short term to overcome any problems that he identifies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, the House will have seen for itself the number of right hon. and hon. Members rising to question the statement. No way can I call them all, so many will be disappointed. I remind the House that we are not having a debate but questioning a statement. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to put one precise question for the Secretary of State to answer precisely. Then we can get through the questions efficiently and properly.

Mr. Richard Page: In contrast to the carping comments by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."], I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is almost exactly that for which I and other right hon. and hon. Members have been asking for the past few weeks—especially the short-term relief to pensioners. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his remarks and actions today will allow pressure to be kept on the banks especially to find out exactly where the money has gone? A decision on the final compensation to Maxwell pensioners can then be made on the basis of fact, not emotion, and with proper regard to who is responsible—rather than just relying on taxpayers' money.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I pay tribute to him for the part that he played in pressing the case of Maxwell pensioners. My hon. Friend has undoubtedly helped considerably in bringing about the measures that I was able to announce today.
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that there is an acute short-term problem, and it is that which the Government have sought to help ease in the first place. He is right also to recognise that the focus is on the financial institutions. It would be wrong for anyone to suggest that the focus should be taken away from them.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance this

afternoon that, following his announcement, all Maxwell pensioners will, at least over the next six months, have 100 per cent. of that to which they are entitled?

Mr. Lilley: I very much hope that the fund, in agreement with the trustees of the pension schemes—who have the ultimate responsibility—will be able to make it possible for all the pension schemes to maintain the payment of pensions. But that must be for discussion between them and those who will be arranging the distribution of the grants.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the whole House on implementing the all-party recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security so speedily and efficiently after he entered the Government? Will he confirm that he will take up with the financial institutions the fact that many institutions that go round selling themselves as the smartest banks and financial institutions in the world are suddenly declaring that they were incompetent when it came to assessing whether Mr. Maxwell was honest or otherwise? Will he also confirm—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked two questions on my count.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) also played a valuable part in investigating the affair. I agree with him that the onus is on those who had dealings with Maxwell in the past to examine their consciences and to see whether they should share the profits that they made in the past with those who suffered a great loss at the hands of Maxwell.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that the House welcomes many of his recommendations today, but is perhaps somewhat surprised at the sum of the compensation—if that is the term—that he is offering at this stage? Can he tell us more about how he arrived at that sum? How was it calculated? Does he believe that it will be adequate to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)? Will he give the House an undertaking that, if the trustees report to him that there are not adequate funds, he will come back to the House before the fund is terminated?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks and for his earlier ones. I should explain that the money is not compensation. It is designed to ease the acute short-term pressures facing some of the funds and their pensioners. I am advised that the sum should be enough to enable all pension funds to maintain payment of pensions during the months in which we are waiting for the court to make its ruling on the allocation of the frozen funds. During that time, we also hope to make progress on securing the return of stolen assets and on securing contributions from the City. What we cannot do is suggest that the Government offers an open-ended guarantee that would remove pressure on other quarters to contribute. That is an important aspect.

Sir Peter Hordern: What is the position of the banks? If the banks advanced money to Maxwell on the security of the assets in the pension funds which were not his to pledge, should they not have the responsibility of returning those assets to the pension funds?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is a legal question about the ownership of such assets, but there is also a moral question, which we invite the banks and other financial institutions to answer. I am sure that many will be willing to answer positively.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that while the Maxwell clan is still living on the fat of the land, many of the thousands of people that I have met on the Maxwell lobby do not have two ha'pennies to rub together? I have some advice for the Secretary of State regarding the banks. Will he institute the legislation that was used against the miners' funds in 1984, when that money was hunted down in Swiss, Luxembourg and Irish banks? If it was good enough for the National Union of Mineworkers, it should be good enough for Maxwell. The Secretary of State should get the money from the banks and put it into the pockets of the Maxwell pensioners.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should not think that he is the only person who has sympathy for the Maxwell pensioners. It is precisely because the whole House recognises the acute pressures under which they have been placed that I made my statement today. An array of legal methods is available to the liquidators and they will use those methods vigorously, with the help of the unit that I have established today, to achieve the rapid return of the stolen assets where that is possible.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State accept that, while he has advisers to help him, the role of hon. Members is to stand, especially, at the side of those who never worked for Maxwell, but whose pensions went into his hands and out of those of their trustees when they retired? We shall not rest until we know that those pensioners will continue to receive the money on which they retired and on which they expected to live in the same way as other pensioners.

Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Those pensioners evoke peculiar and extreme sympathy. We wish to see them benefit from the measures that I have undertaken today.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is deeply offensive to the victims of these events to see the continuing millionaire life style of the Maxwell family? Would we be right to come to the conclusion that all those held responsible for plundering the pension funds—it was not Maxwell alone—will be brought to justice?

Mr. Lilley: For almost the first time in my life, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind the crucial role that the banks can play and the positive contribution that they can make, will my right hon. Friend summon the chairmen of the clearing banks and other suitable financial institutions to tell them that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that they should honour their moral obligations?

Mr. Lilley: I have no doubt that they will be paying close attention to proceedings in the House, but should it be necessary to act as my hon. Friend suggests, I shall, of course, do so. However, I hope that the unit that I have established today will make progress, establish a trust fund and secure contributions.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as far back as the late 1960s, the Board of Trade produced clear evidence on whether Mr. Maxwell was fit to be in charge of a company? The banks should be told that, as they ignored that evidence, they should return immediately all the assets that they hold, which are not theirs morally or, I suspect, legally.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is quite correct. The Department of Trade and Industry published a report saying that Maxwell was not fit to be in charge of a public company. At that stage, we had no power to disqualify people from being directors as a result of such findings and it was only subsequently that the House took those powers without retrospective effect. None the less, the warning was made in public for all to see and those who dealt with Maxwell did so potentially knowingly.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon, with particular reference to the proposed review of pension law. Has a time limit been imposed on the repayable grant that he outlined?

Mr. Lilley: No, we expect that money to be repaid only if the pension funds found themselves in a position to do so without detriment to their pensioners—in other words, if they were successful in securing the return of stolen assets, in which case the money should be returned to the public purse.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Secretary of State met any of the pensioners who are now lobbying the House? If not, will he arrange to do so? Is he aware that they will be deeply disappointed that he has not gone much further today and that they want a lifebelt which is adequate for its task and will be available until rescue is secured?

Mr. Lilley: Of course I have met Maxwell pensioners and have a considerable number in my constituency. By and large, they will welcome the measures that I have taken today. Naturally, many would like an immediate and overall guarantee, but they recognise that, realistically, no Government could be expected to underwrite all losses made through fraud and theft from savings. They will therefore recognise that the measures that I have outlined offer the best way forward in their difficult plight.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the consequence of what he has announced today is that the Arnold pensioners in Leeds, whose payments have already been stopped, and the Petty pensioners who are threatened with massive reductions in their payments, will now have those made up, pending the resolution of the issues that he has described?

Mr. Lilley: Yes. Our intention is that those funds should be able to resume payment to their pensioners.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Further to the Secretary of State's last response, there is no guarantee that that money will be forthcoming for the Arnold and Petty pensioners because the Secretary of State has already said so in answer to an earlier question. Will he confirm that again? Moreover, will he acknowledge that his statement is a great disappointment to those pensioners who lost their pensions in May this year because of the fraudulent actions of another person? Will he also


acknowledge that his statement has increased their insecurity because they have no guarantee that they will have any rights in the future? The Secretary of State is playing for time with other people's investments and futures.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is trying to attach a dark cloud to a silver lining. It is clear that the measure is intended to enable the pension funds to resume and maintain their pensions, but we do not offer an unlimited guarantee into the indefinite future. I have made that clear.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has told the House that a unit will look at the institutions in the City but will he go further, in line with what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was saying, and have that unit examine matters such as buying political influence from the Labour party, buying football clubs and things of that nature? Will the unit be able to look at such fraudulent conversion and try to get money back from those who have it in their bank accounts?

Mr. Lilley: All those who had close dealings with Mr. Maxwell will doubtless be examining their bank accounts.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it the Minister's intention that returned stolen assets or contributions to his new trust fund will be tax deductible?

Mr. Lilley: I hope that the trust fund will have charitable status and that no question of taxation would therefore arise.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the future of pension fund trusteeships? Can he reassure the House that the steps that he is now putting in hand will ensure, to the best of the Government's ability, that such a thing can never happen again?

Mr. Lilley: One can never be absolutely certain that one has created a system that is 100 per cent. foolproof against crime. However, we can certainly ensure that such a crime never recurs, and that we have a system of pension fund law and regulation that is up to date, efficient and deals with some of the issues that have been highlighted as the spotlight has played across the spectrum of law and regulation in this sphere, so that people have greater security than in the past. We should not forget that occupational pension funds have been of great benefit to the bulk of their members over the years. We want such pension funds to be of even greater benefit in future.

Mr. Robert Hughes: While much of the Secretary of State's statement requires digestion, will he now answer one specific question? What is the definition of a Maxwell pensioner? Does it mean someone of normal retirement age or does it refer to the age at which people become eligible for the benefits from the pension scheme? Will he go further than hope that pensioners receive a 100 per cent. payment, and guarantee that they will get a 100 per cent. payment?

Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with complexities of people with the right to early retirement, that must be a matter for discussion with representatives of the individual pension schemes. That is why an across-the-board, 100 per cent. guarantee cannot be given.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that many Maxwell pensioners have today expressed great anger at the sight of the Maxwell family continuing to enjoy high living standards, and being involved in the running and setting up of businesses, when many pensioners have been denied the financial security for which they have worked? Is it not time to take action against the Maxwell family to prevent its members continuing their dastardly deeds?

Mr. Lilley: There are deep feelings about that issue among all hon. Members, and a desire to see the appropriate action taken against anyone—whether members of the Maxwell family or others—who have acquired assets illegally and have an obligation to return them to those who have suffered as a result of the depredations on the Maxwell pension fund.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State assure the Floform pensioners in my constituency that the £2.5 million grant that he so generously announced this afternoon will be increased if the short-term pressures prove greater than he expects? Does the Secretary of State expect those who have not received pensions for the past two months to start receiving them now?

Mr. Lilley: Certainly, it is our clear intention that those who have not been receiving pension payments should now start doing so, and that those threatened with having them cut off should continue to receive them. I am advised that the £2.5 million is adequate to ensure that we can ease the problems of this unusual short-term period, when hundreds of millions of pounds of assets are frozen and unavailable to the funds. Let us get the matter in perspective: £100 million of frozen funds will be released when the court rules on how that money is to be distributed among the various schemes, and there is no reason to suppose that the court will not rule.

Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Maxwell Communication Works pension fund and the potential difficulties that may be faced after 1 July. Having given his welcome statement on temporary help, can he confirm that those pensions will be paid in full from 1 July and that it is the Government's intention that full payments should continue through the autumn? I am thinking particularly of the Maxwell Communication Works pension fund, which has brought problems to Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.

Mr. Lilley: It is certainly our intention that those who are not being paid pensions and those threatened with a cut in pensions should receive and maintain pension fund payments. There will have to be discussions between the trustees of those funds and the unit distributing the money to decide how best to operate the scheme and the precise amount to be paid out in the light of the trustees' long-term position.

Mr. Tony Banks: What advice is the Governor of the Bank of England offering to the banks that are effectively in possession of stolen property? Will the Secretary of State support the Select Committee in efforts to reinvestigate the affair and recall those two crooks the Maxwell brothers to answer questions, so that


if the brothers do not do so, they can be brought to the Bar of the House and, if necessary, put behind bars where they belong?

Mr. Lilley: The Governor of the Bank of England fully supports the unit that I have established today. A Select Committee would have to be re-established before it could consider who to interview or reinterview, which would be a matter for it, not me.

Mr. Michael Bates: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if a regulatory failure has occurred, substantially more responsibility must be placed on the pensions industry as a whole? Given that the industry has assets of some £300 billion, and that many of the participating funds are in surplus, a swift contribution to the trust fund is surely in its own best interests.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has made a good point. There are many precedents for members of an industry—in their own interests—to take action to ensure that that industry ranks high in the faith of the public, and maintains a good public reputation. I am sure that the pension fund industry will want its reputation to remain as good as it always has been, and should be. One way to secure that reputation is to ensure that the plight of the Maxwell pensioners is considerably eased, and I very much hope that the industry will be able to contribute to the fund.

Mr. John Gunnell: The Secretary of State has made it clear that whether 100 per cent. of the pensions that Maxwell pensioners currently expect is paid to those pensioners will be up to individual pension funds and their trustees. Will he make it clear to those trustees that the Government intend pensioners to receive 100 per cent.? If the funds that he has announced today are not sufficient to enable that to happen, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that sufficient funds are made available for pensions to be maintained at the level expected by these innocent people before they learnt of Maxwell's crime?

Mr. Lilley: I have made it clear that the Government cannot underwrite 100 per cent. pension payments indefinitely. We have made available a fund that will enable the restoration and maintenance of pensions that have been cut during the period concerned, or cuts which have been threatened. It will, however, be up to the trustees and those who handle the money that I have made available to decide how it should best be allocated during a period in which we are subject to acute pressures and are waiting for a much larger sum to be released. I hope that much more money will come from the City, and from the return of stolen assets.
That is the long-term solution. People should not expect the action that I have announced—action to deal with the short-term pressures—to resolve the long-term problem; that will be done through the return of stolen assets, and the securing of contributions to the trust fund from those who feel obliged and willing to contribute.

Mr. David Sumberg: Does not my right hon. Friend's statement constitute the first public recognition that the Government have a role to play in these matters? That is very welcome.
Does not the onus now lie on the banks? This is not their money, or Maxwell's money; it is the pensioners' money, and honour and justice dictate that the banks should do something about it.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that that is where attention will now be focused, and rightly so. I hope that we shall succeed in mobilising resources as a result of the establishment of the unit and the trust, and that those resources will be channelled to mitigate the long-term pain and anguish of the Maxwell pensioners.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that the legal framework, and lack of regulation, allowed this robbery to take place? Does he accept that 12 months is far too long to wait for the report, before which no legislation can be introduced? We need far more urgent legislation which can make the pensioners and the contributors the sole controllers of pension funds—rather than putting them in the control of crooked millionaires who seek to invest in their own companies for their own benefit.

Mr. Lilley: The basic cause of crime is criminals, and in this case we happen to know who the principal criminal was—Robert Maxwell. We want to ensure that the legal and regulatory framework make it as difficult as possible for criminals to commit crimes in the future, and, if that is to be achieved, a review must be undertaken and must examine all the questions thoroughly. That was advised unanimously by those on the Select Committee, of which I thought the hon. Gentleman was a member. I have taken the Committee's advice, and I consider it wise and sensible to adopt that approach rather than to introduce immediate, off-the-cuff legislation without proper preparation.

Mr. Douglas French: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement, and particularly on ensuring that the pensions law review will consider not only the current defects in the law, but instances in which the existing law is satisfactory but is not being properly administered and enforced. That seems to me to be an essential part of the work of the review. Can my right hon. Friend also confirm that the review will take into account the ownership of surpluses, where those exist?

Mr. Lilley: Yes, I can confirm the latter point. The review will be able to consider the ownership of surpluses and assets of the fund. I thought it right that the terms of reference should be wide rather than narrow and permit the review to investigate all the issues that have been raised in recent months, as people have considered what is or is not satisfactory in the law and regulation of pension funds. The terms of reference are not artificially restrictive; they enable the review to go about its business without being artificially hampered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State not accept that one of the worst problems for pensioners is the anxiety that they have had to endure for the last seven months about what is happening? Can he say how soon he expects the money to be returned by the banks and others and how soon he can give all pensioners in the schemes a guarantee that they will get 100 per cent. of their pension?

Mr. Lilley: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the problem is made far worse by the uncertainty which is inherent in the problems that Maxwell left behind him, but unfortunately the business of securing the return of assets and of other contributions is a process. It is not something that will suddenly be over at a point in time. The only step in that direction will be the release of the £100 million of frozen assets, once the court has ruled how that money should be distributed among the schemes. That I expect in a comparatively few months, but it is up to the court to determine how long it should take in making that ruling.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in Oslo on 4 June which I attended to discuss the outcome of the Danish referendum on the treaty of Maastricht.
At the meeting, the Foreign Minister of Denmark, Mr. Ellemann-Jensen, explained that the Danish Government needed time to consider their response to the referendum. The Danish Government wished to keep all options open, with the aim of agreeing a way forward acceptable to all Twelve member states. He was not seeking a renegotiation of the treaty of Maastricht, because he did not believe that this would be agreed by other member states. In this, as the discussion showed, he was right.
I made it clear that the Government respected the outcome of the referendum as the democratically expressed view of the Danish people, as provided for in the Danish constitution. I added that the concerns of the Danish people against centralisation were reflected in this country, too, and that we would not be prepared to join any attempt to coerce the Danes. There were lessons for us all to consider. The Maastricht treaty had, however, been signed by all member states. Like other Community Governments, we believed it right, as the Prime Minister said to the House on 3 June, to continue with the process of ratification. It was agreed that the door should be left open for Denmark.
After discussion the Council agreed a short statement of conclusions, which has been placed in the Library of the House. The House will have an opportunity to debate the implications before proceeding with the Committee stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, the varied work of the Community will continue—with Denmark, of course, as a full member.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: After listening to the Foreign Secretary, the House will be no clearer about the situation following the Danish referendum. It is all very well for the European Community Foreign Ministers to say that they wish to proceed with ratification of the present text of the Maastricht treaty, but will the Foreign Secretary explain the point of that when the treaty cannot be operative unless all the Twelve ratify it and when the Danish people have just voted not to ratify it? It does not seem to me that either the European Community Ministers or the Government here have come to grips with the real situation which faces the Community and the House.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that there are lessons for us all in the referendum, but the question is whether the Government have learnt those lessons. The British Government showed the Danes the way by opting out of major provisions of the Maastricht treaty. The Danes have simply followed that approach to its logical conclusion by deciding to opt out of the whole treaty. Labour would want to see the whole treaty enacted.
The Government should take this opportunity to remedy their damaging precedent by reconsidering the treaty. The United Kingdom should opt back into the social chapter and press for suitable convergence conditions for economic and monetary union, including anti-unemployment policies, strong regional policies and


constructive industrial restructuring policies. That is the sensible and constructive way forward, if only the Government had the good sense to grasp it.
Meanwhile, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House the Government's intentions for the European Communities (Amendment) Bill? It is only right to tell him the Labour party's intentions. At 7.30 am last Wednesday, the right hon. Gentleman told radio listeners that the Government intended to proceed that day with the Bill's Committee stage. A few hours later, the Government changed their mind and abandoned the Committee stage. Let me make it clear that we would regard it as improper for the House to be asked to debate and approve legislation enacting into United Kingdom law a treaty that is inherently faulty as a result of the Danish referendum.
We ask, as soon as possible, for the report to the House, for which we asked last week, and for the debate on that report, which the right hon. Gentleman promised. If the report shows a clear way ahead which would allow the House to consider the Bill sensibly, well and good. If the Government are not able to offer that clear way ahead, the Labour party will oppose any further consideration of the Bill and will vote accordingly.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman did his best, but the intellectual confusion on which he rested his case was apparent. He clambered about trying to decide which intellectual fence to sit on.
The right hon. Gentleman is also getting very inaccurate in his old age. He will not find that I said anything in my radio broadcast last Wednesday about proceeding with the Bill. He will not find any way in which he can distinguish what I said in the morning from what the Prime Minister said in the afternoon. There is a very good reason for that: we are in the habit of concerting our pronouncements pretty closely, and we did so on this occasion. Both of us said that we would proceed, as the Prime Minister said again, but neither of us gave a date on which we would do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a more serious question about ratification—an entirely worthwhile question. [Interruption.] I have to pick them out, Madam Speaker. The 12 member states signed the treaty of Maastricht and then went their ways, according to their separate procedures, to seek ratification. One member state has had the reverse, in the Danish referendum, in doing that. The Danes came to us on Thursday and asked for time, making it clear that, from their point of view, all options were open. They are clearly entitled to time. I am very much against any effort to slam the door against them. They are entitled to time as members and in accordance with the treaty. Equally, other countries are entitled to continue with their ratification procedures. It is clear that this treaty cannot come into effect until all 12 members have ratified it.
The right hon. Gentleman finally asked about procedures in the House. They are not essentially a matter for me, but, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, the Prime Minister made it clear that we were inclined to accept—and did accept—the case for having a general debate on the implications of the Danish referendum before we discussed the Bill in Committee. We stand by that, but the timing of the debate needs to be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. David Howell: Whether the Maastricht treaty is eventually renegotiated or unbundled, or merely stays the same, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital in the coming months to reinterpret the treaty in a way that gives maximum emphasis to the aims expressed by the excellent determination of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it should be a treaty to reverse the move towards centralisation in the affairs of the Community? Does he accept that some items in and aspects of the treaty do that, although there are also aspects which do not? In the coming months, will he undertake, with his colleagues and with our support, to give maximum intellectual vigour to the drive to reinterpret the way forward for Europe towards decentralisation rather than centralisation?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has, not for the first time, got the analysis exactly right. Long before the Danish referendum we said that Britain wanted a Europe wider in membership and more decentralising in operation than at the moment. There is no happy status quo in the present stage, as anyone can judge who considers the present controversies over the Single European Act. We are clear in our minds that we are more likely to get that wider and more decentralised Europe on the basis of the treaty of Maastricht than in the confusion which would follow if it were destroyed. That is a matter of judgment for the House and elsewhere, but we believe that, in the confusion which might follow the collapse of the treaty, we might find it impossible to get any agreement on enlargement, which is one of the main objectives of this country, or on decentralisation.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Liberal Democrats have always favoured a federal, decentralised, democratic European Community? To put matters in proportion, at the previous general election we won nearly 2 million more votes than the population of Denmark. Does he agree that we are entitled to be heard—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does he agree—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I need to hear the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Russell Johnston: Millions of people outside the House and many hon. Members want a coherent, effective, democratic European Community and are appalled by the rise of dead-end nationalism.

Mr. Hurd: There appears to be some difficulty about the geographical place that the hon. Gentleman is now occupying with regard to the House's attention, but that is not his fault. I think that he will agree that the voters in Denmark have given politicians a kick in the pants. People always enjoy that because our profession is not especially popular, but once that has happened, politicians must get on with their job, remembering why they were kicked in the pants. We must proceed, and that is what we intend to do.

Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am very conscious that he had a distinguished role outside politics as a novelist and as a


one-time career diplomat which has enabled him to understand both English and Euro-speak? That ability is not given to us all.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary apparently made encouraging noises in Oslo to the Danes about the virtues of decentralisation in the developing Community. Is he aware that it was reported in The Times today that Chancellor Kohl has said that, once the Danish hiccup is out of the way, there will be an acceleration of European integration? May we have an assessment of the situation in plain-speak?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to give such an assessment. It is not only in Oslo that we have argued against the centralising tendency of the Community. My right hon. Friend knows well that we have done so—that I have done so—for many months now. As my right hon. Friend said, that is our purpose. The question before the House in the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and before Europe more generally is whether that purpose is best served with or without the treaty of Maastricht.
On Wednesday, my right hon. Friend put to the Prime Minister—he had a good deal of support in the House for doing so—a proposition about renegotiation. He said that now, after the Danish result, was the time to seek to renegotiate the treaty so that we should end up with fewer powers for the Commission and the court and with, basically, a free-trade area with the single market. However, the very statement attributed to the Federal Chancellor shows the difficulty of that path, as the Prime Minister said in reply.
If one seeks to reopen in renegotiation the whole treaty of Maastricht, one does not achieve, I assure my right hon. Friend, an agreement on a free-trade area, a single market and some intergovernmental co-operation. One achieves immediately the putting forward again of all the centralising arguments which we successfully pushed out of the way at Maastricht. That is what would happen. The discussions I had at Oslo clearly confirmed that from a number of quarters, as does the report to which my right hon. Friend referred. That is the difficulty of proceeding as he wants.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), is it not clear that the part of the Maastricht treaty which amends the European Communities Act 1972 cannot proceed until and unless the Danish people change their minds? On that point, therefore, it is right to say that it is dead. On the other part of Maastricht—on the so-called "pillars" and on the intergovernmental treaties dealing with foreign policy and home affairs—no such restraint exists. It does not require the unanimous agreement of the Twelve.
Given the Government's view about economic and monetary union—they have not, of course opted in because they have grave doubts about that—and given their enthusiasm for intergovernmental arrangements, is it not obvious that the Government should now accept with equanimity the failure to enact the part of the treaty which amends the European Communities Act and that they should go ahead as far as they can with the other parts of the treaty which require no such procedure?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has not got it exactly right. The economic and monetary union proposals in the treaty of Maastricht do not involve, as I understand it, an amendment to the treaty of Rome. They are treaty proposals, but they do not involve an amendment to the treaty of Rome. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am a bit reluctant to see the unbundling of the treaty of Maastricht, which is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes. It is being discussed, as the right hon. Gentleman has discussed it, but I do not think that it would be an easy task on which to reach agreement. Nor is it what the Danish Government have asked for.
The Danish Government's request was not for renegotiation, as I said in my statement, nor for taking apart the treaty of union to look at which bits they could accept without a further referendum and which bits they could not. Their proposition was simply that they should have time while they considered all the options open to them. It was reasonable, therefore, at Oslo to say that, as that was their request, that is what should be accorded.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although technically there are ways of proceeding towards ratification without Denmark, they will be rejected by Her Majesty's Government, as will any moves to pressurise the Danes to reverse their position? Surely what we now have is a breathing space in which we can consolidate the position won by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at Maastricht as the best way forward for the enlargement of the Community. What we do not now want is a fresh start to the negotiations.

Mr. Hurd: We should be very reluctant to go along with any answer to the problem of the Danish referendum that lost the prospect of enlargement; I made that point clear in an earlier answer. My hon. Friend is entirely right. What the Danes asked for seemed to be, in the circumstances, the right request and they were granted that request. They were entirely entitled to that, and that enables us to think the question through and produce an answer which I hope can be agreed to by all 12 countries.

Mr. John Home Robertson: No one in Scotland would recognise the present Government as a Government wholly committed to decentralisation, but is the Secretary of State aware that, although many of us understand the suspicions that led the Danes to do what they did, we fear that they may have done terrible damage to the interests of small nations? Will the Government therefore continue to press for a fairer and more democratic Europe, and will the Conservatives resist the temptation to revert to type as the party of little Englanders?

Mr. Hurd: I am certainly against any effort in Europe to say that, because Denmark is a small country, it is of no account. The Danes have their rights, they have exercised their rights and, for my part, a lot of the discussion in Oslo on Friday was designed to ensure that we did not appear to neglect that fact.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best parts of Maastricht are those that require no modification to the treaty at all—agreement on intergovernmental co-operation on justice and internal matters, foreign affairs and defence? May I


express the hope that the Government proceed with that on the basis of agreement between Governments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rest of the Maastricht treaty was very much on the basis of a Community of 12, and not of 11 plus one, and, if he has difficulties with the word "renegotiation", will he accept that there would have to be substantial changes and modifications to the treaty before the House could give its approval?

Mr. Hurd: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) answered that question skilfully. People in Denmark and in this House are concerned not so much about what is in the treaty of Maastricht as about how that treaty would in practice operate, in the light of our experience of the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. We need to find a way of dealing not just with the treaty of Maastricht but with all the texts on the basis of which we operate, to improve matters and to make it clear to our constituents and others in the Community that matters will improve. That is the process that my right hon. Friend and I were discussing, and we must consider how best to push it forward.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the lessons to be learnt from this episode are that the centre cannot steamroller naturally small communities, be they the Danes or anyone else; that long-term political stability and unity can be built only when the diversity of cultures and aspirations within Europe is recognised; that that principle is just as valid for countries such as Wales, Scotland and other national communities within Europe as it is for the Danes; and that no long-term future for Europe can be achieved if there is a cobbling together of aspirations by the 50 million club at the expense of communities of 5 million?

Mr. Hurd: At the moment we are a Community of 12 democratic states each operating under its own rule of law, and that means that changes do not take place smoothly. On many occasions in the past the Community has come to a halt—a temporary stop—while difficulties of this kind have been dealt with. The Single European Act was held up for many months because of a difficulty in the Irish courts. That happens, and it is part of the nature and diversity of the Community. It is a Community of democracies. They have to follow their own procedures and we have to respect them.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the Government's policy when we assume the presidency next month? Would it not be wise to concentrate on matters that would allow us to enlarge the Community to include the EFTA countries and eastern European countries in due course and establish our policy accordingly? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing distaste for what many people see as the federalising influence of Mr. Delors and the European Commission which should be denied?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our objectives in the presidency have been spelt out to the House. They are the completion of the single market and carrying forward from the present presidency the discussion about financial arrangements, something which will clearly continue to be necessary. They also include setting the pace for enlargement. That may well be more difficult as a result of the Danish referendum. However, we will have to press ahead with that as far, and as fast, as we can. I agree

with that. I also agree that it is very important that the Commission should follow up what its President has said, and whose words I quoted to the House, about the great importance not just of having an article about subsidiarity in the new treaty, but of ensuring that the practice of the Commission and the other Community institutions follows that course.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Has the Secretary of State seen the suggestion that the 11 countries could abrogate their responsibilities in the treaty of Rome, incorporate the provisions of that treaty into the Maastricht treaty and then, as 11, ratify the Maastricht treaty? Does he agree that such a stratagem contains distant echoes of those European countries with written constitutions which tend to tear them up when those constitutions are inconvenient and replace them with new and more malleable constitutions? Will he assure the House that the Government would not be part of such a stratagem?

Mr. Hurd: I find that option very unattractive. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a possible unrolling of the treaty and taking parts out which could be dealt with intergovernmentally. Obviously, that is an option, but it is perhaps more difficult than the right hon. Gentleman described. However, the idea of turning the whole treaty by way of lawyers' changes into a treaty which only 11 could sign, and going ahead on that basis, is not something that we could accept.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend may recall that I was the first Conservative Member to congratulate him on his tremendous work in negotiating the Maastricht treaty. I am sorry that by signing early-day motion 174 it appears that I may have given him a kick up the pants. There are as many interpretations of our intentions in signing that early-day motion as there are of the treaty itself. The Danish referendum has shown that in this country—

Madam Speaker: Order. What I said about the previous statement applies to this statement: there should be one question to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people are concerned that the Danish have spoken out with great concern about the interpretation of the treaty? Many of us will find it very difficult to support the continuing ratification process without a much clearer explanation of what the treaty actually means.

Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and he put it in an extremely useful way. We will do our best to meet it, and the undertaking of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition does that in part.
I was wrong to say earlier that EMU is entirely freestanding of the treaty of Rome. It could be isolated from amendment of the treaty of Rome, but that would be a difficult job.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As the Maastricht agreement is, at present, effectively null and void in that it no longer attracts the support of all the 12 Community nations, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not proceed with the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill until there is a new accord between Denmark and the other 11 nations?

Mr. Hurd: No. I think that my undertaking and that of the Prime Minister are clear enough. The Maastricht treaty has never been anything except null and void: it has not yet come into effect. We are talking about the procedures which each nation state is taking to achieve ratification. The Danes have asked for time about that for reasons which are clear enough to everyone. We will have to judge carefully how precisely and with what timing that relates to proceedings in this House.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many advantages for Britain from Maastricht that Britain would want to keep? Would we not have a better chance of keeping them if Brussels was to give a slightly better demonstration of the working of subsidiarity? That means appearing slightly less to interfere and perhaps considering the return of some powers to sovereign Governments.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the first part of what my hon. Friend said. In general terms, statements from Brussels are clear enough. In particular terms, they sometimes contradict the general statements.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the Ministers he met in Oslo are an increasingly unrepresentative elite who want to go further and faster in a direction that most people do not want to go? What Europe needs now is a large dose of democracy and people power. The people of Denmark have spoken. Should not the British people have the same opportunity?

Mr. Hurd: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that point last week.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: If the Maastricht treaty is not ratified by 12 member states, is it not lifeless and dead? If it is dead, what on earth is the point of going through a ratification process with the other 11 member states if that is only to pretend that it has life? Is there not a better case for renegotiating the treaty to lose its federalism and centralising element so that it can have the support of all member states and then be properly ratified?

Mr. Hurd: I tried to answer that point earlier. That is not what would happen. If we simply said that we intend to call for the renegotiation of the treaty, all the centralising proposals that we batted away and got rid of with great difficulty during the autumn and winter would return. Instead of negotiating an agreement on the kind of Europe that my hon. and learned Friend would like, we would be back in the maelstrom. I do not think that that is in the interests of this country.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We now move to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10229/91, relating to the Common Fisheries Policy, 5088/92, relating to a quality policy for fishery products, 5210/92, relating to monitoring implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy, 5337/92, relating to discarding of fish in Community Fisheries and 5351/92 + ADD 1, relating to the common organisation of the market in fishery products.]

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister of State to move the Second Reading, I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There are two big issues in fisheries policy. The first is the conservation of fish stocks; the second is the structure and capacity of the fleet. They are, of course, linked, but they are not interchangeable.
The need for conservation is addressed by technical measures such as mesh size, the kind of gear used and how it is rigged. However, technical conservation poses real problems of surveillance. There is cheating and far too much discarding. There is therefore a need to deal not just with the size of fish taken out of the seas, but to limit the number of fish removed. Quotas control only what is landed. The overwhelming need is to reduce total fish mortality. Hence the necessary complement of technical conservation is effort control. That is what the Bill is about.
The second problem is fleet structure. That problem is tackled by decommissioning and measures to tax the aggregation of capacity. It is also tackled by measures to permit more economic operation of the industry by introducing a greater element of market forces—notably by means of the trade in licences.
Underpinning both aspects of policy is the licensing of vessels. There is no point in curbing fishing activity by over-10 m boats if the under-10 m fleet can simply expand without real check. That is why, despite the heavy administrative and manpower costs involved, I have accepted the argument of the fishing organisations that licensing should extend to the entire fleet. That will give us a valuable new instrument of management, which is essential if we are to make effort control and decommissioning work for the benefit of the industry.
There is a parallel approach, which is tackling the effort and the capacity. That parallel approach is at the heart of the Government's policy. It translates into five related groups of actions. They depend both on Community and unilateral decision making, so it is entirely right that this debate should cover wider Community fishing policy as well as the specific and limited question concerned with the Second Reading.
Those five elements are decommissioning, improving the operation of market forces, the extension of licensing, technical conservation, and effort control. Many details,


notably the details involved in decommissioning and in effort control, are subject to consultation. That consultation remains entirely valid, because all that the Bill does is to empower fisheries Ministers to attach a condition to a licence. The details of that are still subject to consultation, which is an extremely valuable exercise for fisheries departments. Indeed, I extended the period so that the organisations had time to call their members together to give a considered response.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister suggests that he is merely empowering, but it is a major power being put into the hands of the Executive. If the Bill is passed, what arrangements will be made to allow the House properly to consider any condition that the Minister would wish to attach to a licence before the conditions became current?

Mr. Curry: I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware that the conditions currently attached to licences, which are fixed from time to time, are not debated in the House. He will also be aware that 3,800 vessels will have licence conditions attached to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to debate the fate of 3,800 vessels. However, he may remain confident that the consultation exercise with the industry is of great importance and is essential to the effective working of the measure.

Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no follow-up by way of detailed regulations—that he may use that power by imposing conditions on licences, but that it will not be like the normal procedures of the House whereby an enabling Bill is followed by detailed regulations to implement a power?

Mr. Curry: The power that the Bill would confer would enable fisheries Ministers to attach further conditions to a licence. My hon. Friend will know from his experience in the fisheries sector and from his constituency interest that a licence already bears a significant weight of conditions to it. Indeed, that is one of the principal instruments of control. The European Community is looking to provide some overall framework on a Community level so that we can have more discipline relating to licences. My hon. Friend is correct in his surmise that that power would enable me to make conditions which would be issued to each vessel in the over-10 m fleet and would then condition the days at sea on which it operated.

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Curry: I will give way, but the House wishes me to make progress.

Mr. Taylor: On giving such powers to the Minister and how they will be implemented in practice, what role will the House have in approving new regulations? For example, with the limit on the days of fishing, at what stage will the House have a say if that limit is introduced?

Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the whole fisheries sector, limits are imposed by means of regulations which come from Brussels or from the House. The purpose of bringing the measure to the House is that, although one could look to Brussels to provide the power to make such an attachment, I would

prefer to have the powers directly from the House so that Ministers may be responsible for the decisions that they take. That seems entirely reasonable.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister clarify what he means by licence conditions? He almost gave the impression—I assume that he did not mean to do so—that there would be different days-at-sea regulations or limits for each vessel. Presumably he was saying that they would apply to all vessels, not boat by boat.

Mr. Curry: I shall refer to the details in a while, but it is certainly not our intention to apply a flat rate condition which is identical for every boat. One of the reasons is that we may face the possibility of segmented multi-annual guidance programme targets from the European Community which would vary according to the type of fishery. We therefore have to maintain flexibility to be able to relate the days at sea in a subsequent phase to the actual fisheries in which we find ourselves involved.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: I will give way once more on this point and then I must make progress. We have not yet discussed the details of effort control.

Mr. Foulkes: I agree with the Minister on flexibility. Will he give an assurance that such flexibility will include taking account of the fact that Clyde fishermen already do not fish at the weekend and that conservation is therefore being practised by Clyde fishermen?

Mr. Curry: I should make it absolutely clear that our intention is to apply the possibilities with maximum flexibility. The 135-day limit already applies to about 450 boats, unless they have the gear option. We shall be looking to be more flexible in the way the limit is applied. I would not wish to take into account merely what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certain fishing communities— because of religious conviction, for example—refrain from fishing on certain occasions. I wish to be able to take that point into consideration by introducing maximum flexibility. I recognise the particular character of the fishing industry and it is not our intention to cut across it.
I shall now deal with the vessel decommissioning scheme because it is part of the twin policies and we should look at matters in the round. As the House will know, fisheries Ministers are prepared to make up to £25 million available for a cash-limited decommissioning scheme to help the industry to bring effort and capacity more into balance with fish stocks. The scheme will aim to target fishing effort, which is defined as days at sea in 1991 multiplied by vessel capacity units, to get the best value for public money. Only seaworthy vessels over 10 m holding valid fishing licences will be eligible to apply. The licences will be permanently extinguished before any grant is paid. Given the criticisms of decommissioning which have been levelled in the past, it is important to make it absolutely clear that when a boat is decommissioned that boat ceases to be part of the licensed fleet. There can be no equivocation about that. To stop idle vessels being reintroduced for the sake of decommissioning grant, we have suggested that only vessels which fished for 100 days in 1991 and in subsequent years should be eligible. The grant may not be paid on vessels which have changed ownership after 1 January 1992.
Community regulations currently require decommissioning grant at a standard rate per tonne. We are pressing the Commission to propose an amendment to the Council regulation which would give us more flexibility to get better value for money. Departments are also considering whether the rate of grant should be determined by tender. That would be one way of getting more value for money. No decommissioning money will be paid until effort control and reduction arrangements are in place. Subject to those arrangements, payments will run over two financial years: 1993–94 and 1994–95.
The second leg of the policy is to improve the operation of market forces. We are keen to allow the industry greater flexibility to manage quotas and to use market forces to rationalise its operations. For instance, we are aware of concern about restrictions placed on quota swaps by producer organisations and we propose to lift those restrictions. The greater flexibility should enable the industry to maximise quota uptake and make annual end of year reallocations of quotas unnecessary. As the House will know, towards the end of autumn every year fisheries departments usually redistribute unused quota between the producer organisations. A mechanism will be provided whereby the organisations can redistribute the quotas, so the market and not the Ministry will deal with the problem.
We also propose to introduce further flexibility by changing the method of calculating quota allocations to allow producer organisations to buy out the track records of member vessels. This will allow producer organisation members to benefit from the removal of old, inefficient vessels.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: I will give way after the next two paragraphs.
The industry also needs to be able to transfer and aggregate licences. The existing rules already allow that, but they have introduced new penalties—20 per cent. for aggregation and transfers. We have consulted the industry and in the light of its comments we shall be prepared to make adjustments. 1 hope that the industry will fully exploit that liberalisation. The more we can get from liberalisation and decommissioning, the less dependent we shall be on effort control, so I hope that the industry will look to the market force element as well as to decommissioning to obtain the maximum from the policy. It obviously makes sense to do so.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister explain why he made the decommissioning scheme—which has general support in the House although there is disappointment at the level of
funding—contingent on acceptance of his pet project of transferable quotas, which is extremely controversial in the fishing industry? Why was not decommissioning of capacity allowed to stand in its own right?

Mr. Curry: The proposal before the House is not for individual transferable quotas in the sense in which they operate in places such as Iceland and New Zealand. It is a limited introduction of transferability and market forces. It is not ITQs as they operate in some other fisheries. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that producer

organisations have said that they would like greater flexibility. I appreciate that it depends which producer organisation one consults. In Scotland the producer organisations play a particularly important role in the industry.
Transferable quotas are not my pet project. However, it is clear that market forces should play a greater role in the industry. My proposal is something which the industry has said that it wants in order to make the system more efficient.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): I wish to pursue this point. I find the Minister's terminology a little disturbing when he talks about old, clapped-out vessels. If the effect of market forces is essentially to close down a fishing industry in one community and allow the quota to disappear into one where fishing is more powerful and capital intensive, is that an acceptable price to pay?

Mr. Curry: If I were introducing absolutely freely tradeable quotas so that, for instance, quotas from the north-east coast of Scotland could be bought by Humberside or vice versa, I might appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. But we are talking about trading within the producer organisations. No one will be obliged to sell. No one will compel people to sell. We are introducing what the producer organisations have asked for.
I will try to get through another chunk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and move to the third leg of the policy, which is the extension of restrictive licensing to vessels under 10 metres. The whole House will welcome it because the fishing industry asked for it. I was initially reluctant because of some of the administrative and manpower effort that would be involved, but I was convinced that it was the right policy. Therefore, we intend to implement licensing of, in effect, the whole fleet.
The 10 m and under-10 m fleet has expanded. We have seen the development of so-called "rule beaters"—vessels constructed by the building yards within 1 mm of whatever set of rules happens to apply. It is important that the benefits of effort control and decommissioning are not undermined by further expansion in the sector. The extension of restrictive licensing will therefore apply to all vessels fishing for profit from 1 January 1993. That will be done by means of a statutory instrument which will of, course, be placed before the House.

Mr. Roger Moate: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend and thank him for his courtesy in giving way. His responses are most helpful in this type of debate. Will he make the position clear on the under-10 m vessels? Is he saying by implication that the days-at-sea regulations will apply to under-10 m vessels—the inshore fleet—or does the Bill provide that the regulations can so apply at some time in the future? His answer is important.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend asked three questions and I shall be precise in my reply. The Bill gives me the power to extend days at sea to the under-10 m fleet, but I do not intend to do so unless it proves necessary because we must build up the information about the behaviour of the under-10 m fleet.
There are two reasons for licensing. The first is to put a ring fence round the industry. That will prevent the effort expanding and people bumping out of the over-10 m fleet


into the under-10 m fleet. The second reason is to enable us to build up information. I make it clear that at present we do not intend to apply either decommissioning or effort control to the under-10 m fleet.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to expand on that? Will licensing be extended to pot fishing for lobster and crab? As he knows, on occasions I have brought delegations of people worried about the amateur nature of such fishing and the unmarked buoys for pots around the south coast which lead to an enormous number of yachts getting ropes around their propellers as well as great antagonism among professional fishermen.

Mr. Curry: The possibility of applying the rules to all vessels licensed within the fleet will exist, but it would be physically impossible, even if I wished to do so, to extend the provisions to a further 7,000 vessels in addition to the 3,800 vessels to which the rules will already apply. The smaller vessels can therefore rest certain that we have neither the means nor the inclination to extend the effort control provisions to vessels below 10 m. Virtually everyone demanded that we should extend licensing to create an effective licensing system which applied to the whole fleet. That part of the package has been widely welcomed.
I must also make it clear that the licence for vessels under 10 m will be a simple permit to fish. We do not intend that such licences will have the complexity of licences for the more powerful fishing vessels, which differentiate between stocks and so on. Of course, the licences will be subject to prohibition orders. We intend to monitor fishing activity data through a sampling regime and may introduce additional controls if they are justified.
To allow market forces to operate more effectively, the new licences will be tradeable between vessels but only within the under-10 m category. The aim is to include all genuine fishermen, but not to give potentially valuable licences to non-fishermen, so we shall ask for evidence of fishing for profit in 1991. We shall give careful consideration to difficult cases such as people who have entered into a financial commitment to buy a vessel—the so-called pipeline cases—or people with replacement vessels. Where there is an obvious wrinkle, we shall be flexible and sensible so as not to exclude people who find themselves in genuine difficulty.
The technical conservation measures, as the House will know, are rules on the type of gear that fishermen can use. They are essential especially to ensure that juvenile fish can escape capture and survive to maturity and reasonable, marketable size. I pay tribute to the pioneering work that the United Kingdom industry has done to popularise some technical conservation measures and, for example, its work on trialling, which has been an extremely useful collaboration. There is certainly a long way still to go on technical conservation. We have a significant agenda which we should like to see accepted at European level. We shall continue to work closely with the industry.
We have agreed significant new Community measures, which came into force on 1 June. They include an increase in the minimum mesh size in the North sea and west of Scotland to 100 mm, with the option to use a square mesh panel of 90 mm. That represents the first Community recognition of the importance of square mesh panels on a Community-wide basis. We have also increased the

minimum mesh size to 80 mm in the Irish sea, as the industry wanted, and introduced a uniform mesh size of 40 mm for pelagic species.
The measures also include a restriction on the use of grading machines to reduce waste of fish by discarding and restrictions on the length of drift nets to 2.5 km in most cases for European Community vessels, wherever they fish, to prevent the development of practices which have done so much harm in the south Pacific and elsewhere.
For practical reasons, a decision was taken last month to defer bringing a few of the new rules into force until January 1993 so as to allow fishermen time to acquire new gear not immediately available on the market. Some United Kingdom fishermen will be helped by that sensible adjustment of the plans.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has received representations from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to delay the one-net rule until January next year. I understand that when members of the federation met officials they were told that there could not be a delay and they want to meet with the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Has the Minister agreed to that meeting and what consideration is he giving to their representations?

Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is sitting beside me, has met Scottish fishermen to discuss the issue and I know that he intends to cover the matter in his reply to the debate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: rose —

Mr. Salmond: Would it be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. To which hon. Gentleman is the Minister giving way? It is not clear.

Mr. Curry: Perhaps I should give the other one a chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for the Minister's felicitous reference to me as "the other one". The one-net rule is of particular significance in those ports which have concentrated on prawn fishing. In my constituency, fishermen are concerned that the one-net rule may have significant consequences for the future of the fishing industry in East Neuk in Fife. There is anxiety that the imposition of the one-net rule may drive those who concentrate on prawn fishing to seek white fish as an alternative, which appears to run contrary to the type of conservation measures to which the Minister has referred.

Mr. Curry: I know that the industry was anxious to have a one-net rule and we would like one to be more generalised throughout the European Community. The problem in Scotland is that the fishing industry was concerned about discards in the nephrops fisheries. I know that the industry has made representations to my hon. Friend and he has heard what they have had to say. The Community rule can be altered only by Community agreement, but my hon. Friend intends to deal with that subject when he winds up. I shall allow one more intervention; then I must get on.

Mr. Salmond: In fairness to fishing organisations, can the Minister confirm that support for the one-net rule has been contingent on by-catch changes to allow it to operate effectively? Given that it is being imposed as a unilateral measure, does he accept that there is nothing to stop the


Government attempting to get an agreement to the by-catch changes throughout Europe before the one-net rule is imposed on 1 January next year?

Mr. Curry: We have to be careful that the changes in the rules do not undermine the essential conservation purpose of the measure. In answer to the last three interventions, I said that the measure has been mentioned by Scottish fishermen to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland He has been listening to what they have said and he will answer the hon. Gentleman's question when he concludes the debate.
I was about to tackle the unilateral measures. Following consultation with the industry, we introduced further national measures. They include restoring the minimum landing size for whiting to 27 cms because the Community had reduced it to 23 cms. I was delighted to be able to announce that the Irish Government had simultaneously introduced the 27 cm minimum landing size for whiting in their fishery. I had discussions with the Irish Minister on Friday about how we could co-operate further in the Irish sea, as it is a vunerable stretch of water and it would make a great deal of sense if we could introduce maximum co-operation in the way in which it is managed.
We have introduced a one-net rule for all licensed vessels. We also introduced compulsory square mesh panels in the Irish sea and south-west of Scotland, where the minimum mesh size is 80 mm. We imposed the square mesh panel on all United Kingdom nephrops fisheries and the package includes anti-ballooning provisions. We have also introduced a ban on twin and multi-rig trawls in all nephrops fisheries except the Fladen ground. There has been a significant advance in technical conservation measures, which form an essential piece of the panoply of fisheries measures.
We regard effort control as essential if we are to tackle the fundamental problem of fishing mortality. We need to take new direct measures to control and reduce fishing effort. That is the only part of the package which requires primary legislation. We have the power to do everything else, which is why other measures do not feature in the Bill. It is an essential part because there will be no decoupling between it and the decommissioning scheme.
We plan to freeze fishing effort for all vessels of more than 10 m at the 1991 level in 1993, with the option of reducing it in the years after that. The size of reduction will depend on the sort of multi-annual guidance programme targets and how they are defined in Brussels, on the final outcome of those negotiations and on the impact of other measures in the package. We believe that the only practical way to control fishing effort is to control the time that vessels spend at sea. The existing licensing provisions in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 already allow us to limit time spent fishing, but it is simply not possible to monitor how much fishing takes place during each trip. Clause 1(2) and 1(3) of the Bill will enable Ministers to restrict the time that licensed vessels spend at sea by imposing a new condition in sea fishing licences. It will also enable them to determine, by way of licence conditions, what time at sea will mean. Our intention is to restrict days at sea and the licence conditions will set down how they will be defined, notified and controlled.
The Bill also contains a number of other measures which will ensure that the new time-at-sea restrictions can be properly enforced and that the penalties for not observing licence limitations and conditions act as real deterrents to would-be offenders. It will give us broader powers to require information from fishermen by enabling us to require the provision of non-statistical information. For the first time, it enables us to say in what form we require the information and does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will enable us to ensure that we have all the information necessary to enforce the new time-at-sea restrictions.
The Bill also allows Ministers to revoke or to suspend licences when licence limitations and conditions, including time-at-sea restrictions, are breached. Clause 2(3) does the same in relation to trans-shipment licences. The provision will for the first time enable Ministers to withdraw or suspend licences as a penalty. We shall no longer be dependent on long-drawn-out court proceedings and inadequate fines to stop or deter over-fishing. We shall be able to take action once a breach has taken place and consider revoking as well as suspending licences. We need severe penalties when fish conservation is at stake.
When I visit fishing communities I am frequently asked when I shall be able to impose some real penalties. Far too often, fishermen seem to get off extremely lightly when convicted of a fishing offence, and the fine is a fraction of the profit gained from the infringement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Curry: I have one more clause to deal with and then I shall give way.
The Bill increases the maximum penalty on summary conviction for breach of a licence condition from £5,000 to £50,000. That will bring the maximum penalty for breaching a time-at-sea restriction into line with the maximum penalty for fishing without a licence or exceeding quota limits.
The Bill will come into force one month after Royal Assent. It applies in Northern Ireland and may be applied in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Curry: I shall give way to those hon. Members who wish to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help enormously if the Minister would say which hon. Gentleman he is giving way to because four seem to wish to intervene.

Mr. Curry: I intended to continue my generosity by giving way to all of them, but I will start with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister. He is being generous and it is helpful to the debate if we may clarify matters. He said that the Bill will provide definitions as to what constitutes a day at sea. The Minister must be aware of the concern that vessels are counted as spending days at sea if they are returning to a home port having discharged their fish or travelling to a port for repairs. Is he minded to make special provision to cover those situations? The proposed restrictions have given rise to much ill feeling in the industry.

Mr. Curry: We have to accommodate a whole series of conditions. We must decide how to deal with the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is one purpose of the consultation. We must deal also with vessels which have already been affected by a tie-up in 1991, or which have taken the gear option. How are we to accommodate those circumstances in the days-at-sea rule? We must take into account also vessels which opt to tie up at an overseas port, because under Community rules we cannot oblige them to tie up in a British port. We must establish a track record for vessels in certain classes which are fishing for non-TAC stocks. It is not part of my purpose to gloss over the difficulties of the exercise, but we have consulted and we are collecting information to work out the most sensible way of overcoming some of the difficulties that we shall encounter.
I repeat that it is not our purpose to apply the rules unreasonably, or in a way that is more restrictive than necessary. It is not our purpose either to deprive fishermen of legitimate days at sea, but to establish a genuine track record when they are involved in fishing. We will go to great lengths to get that right.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend indicated the need for effort control in this country. Can he say why our Community partners do not feel that the same need exists in their countries?

Mr. Curry: It is by no means clear that our Community partners will not feel that way. We all face multi-annual guidance programme targets, and we do not yet know what they will be. We have not received any official notification of the latest proposed targets. The Dutch operate effort controls covering virtually the whole of their fleet. That measure was recommended by the Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. If TACs and quotas do not work, there must be some limitation on effort.
The body which governs New England fisheries is also examining the possibility of introducing effort control. On Friday, I was speaking to my French opposite number, who said that if France is confronted by a MAGP target of a certain size it will have to consider effort control. We are introducing it because we believe that it will provide us with the flexibility to apply targets that are best suited to British fisheries. It is certainly possible that other Community members will want to go down the same route. The Dutch have already led the way in respect of virtually the whole of their fishery.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the hostility of fishermen in the north of England, particularly in relation to the days-at-sea provision? They say that if a proper decommissioning scheme had been introduced and adequately funded, the new provisions would not be necessary. The fishermen argue, "Why should a farmer have set-aside money for setting aside his land when a fisherman is not given set-aside money for decommissioning his boat?" What is the reason for the Government's inconsistency?

Mr. Curry: There is a great difference between the two. A farmer who is told to set aside land—the Community now has what is in practice a compulsory set-aside scheme— is being told that he may not use the land that is his own asset to produce that which we know he could have

produced had he used that land. The fisherman is not being told that he may not catch his quota: the purpose of the measure is not to prevent him doing so out of a common resource. That is the difference between the two.
How many hundreds of millions of pounds would the hon. Gentleman have us spend on a decommissioning scheme? The French Government have just spent £15 million—somewhat less than we plan to spend on a decommissioning scheme. They say that there is no possibility of yet another decommissioning scheme, and that other methods would have to be used. Decommissioning is a necessary element in the programme, but it will not by itself deliver.

Mr. Robert Hicks: I want to press my hon. Friend on the important question of the equivalent action which may or may not be taken by our Community partners. I represent a constituency in the south-west which is vulnerable to the fishing activities of certain of our Community partners. We are worried that Britain could be taking what could prove, in certain circumstances, very restrictive action, but that no comparable action will be taken by our partners. What tangible evidence can I offer my fishermen in Looe or Polperro that we are not alone in taking action to introduce a package of conservation measures throughout the Community?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend can tell them two things. He can say that we are doing this because the United Kingdom has the biggest investment of all the Community fishing countries in the health of the stock, and to protect the futures of British fishermen catching British stocks. We have 89 per cent. of the haddock, and 46 per cent. of the cod. It is our stocks that are at risk, so it is essential that we preserve them.
My hon. Friend can tell his fishermen also that other countries will have to decide how to meet their MAGP targets. We want ours defined in terms of fishing effort because we think that that will give us greater flexibility. I believe that other countries will find themselves moving in the same direction. A number of Ministers told me that decommissioning can only go some of the way. If the Community's proposed targets are eventually agreed, I can think of no country that could meet them by decommissioning alone. I am sure that that will be understood by our fishermen.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Minister indicated that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. Has he entered into full and proper consultation with fish producers in Northern Ireland? If so, how did they react? They are totally opposed to the broad concept of the Bill.
Every time the Minister is pressed to answer a question, he does so with a latitude that is not contained in the Bill. We must deal with the legislation that is before us. For example, 1991 will serve as the base year for the days-at-sea rule. Will the Minister clearly indicate what latitude he will give in variations from the norm in respect of any particular vessel? I understood the Minister to say that the rule will be applied on a vessel-to-vessel basis. Will he give a firm undertaking that variations from the 1991 norm will be taken into account?

Mr. Curry: Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. We chose 1991 as the base because that is the year for the next phase of the MAGP targets. However, I made it clear that


if, for example, a fisherman was affected by circumstances beyond his control in 1991—such as breakdowns—we would take them into consideration. It is not our intention that 1991 should be treated in every single respect with absolute biblical certainty in respect of days at sea. Where a case is shown for flexibility, we will allow it.
Perhaps I should make it clear that it is our intention to establish an appeals procedure so that fishermen can explain the reasons for an unusually low track record in 1991, where this was due to circumstances beyond their control. The appeals tribunal will be independent of MAFF officials and will be able to advise Ministers that they should make an adjustment to the recommended days at sea.

Mr. Michael Brown: I pick up the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) in contrasting the situation in this country with that in the rest of the Community. The Minister's contention is that other countries—he quoted France—will have to consider effort control along those lines. He said that in France, for example, only a £15 million decommissioning scheme had been proposed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is being entirely fair. Several other countries in the European Community are relying much more heavily on decommissioning schemes than either France or ourselves.

Mr. Curry: Let me be clear. I thought that the House was anxious to pursue the principles of subsidiarity, by which I mean that we should be able to implement, by methods that are most appropriate to our conditions, general rules laid down by Brussels. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible that we should apply measures that are most appropriate to our fisheries and conserve our stocks for our fishermen. It is our stocks and our industry which are at risk, and the essential purpose is to conserve them.
Everyone will receive a MAGP target and nobody will be able to escape it. They will all have to meet it. Some countries have already had a decommissioning scheme. The French scheme has finished—it took about 75,000 kilowatts out of the French fleet, and that is reckoned to be equivalent to about 7.5 per cent. We aim that our decommissioning scheme will take upwards of 5 per cent. out of our fleet, depending on whether we can apply it with the type of flexibility that we want.
It will be for other member states to decide how they meet the target. We have decided that the best interests of conservation are served by meeting the target through a mixture of decommissioning, technical conservation and this Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Curry: I shall give way just one more time because I am in danger of beating the record of giving way in the course of a debate. I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but I have tried to be generous.

Mr. Mitchell: The Minister should go for the record. I wish to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about compensation. My hon. Friend referred to decommissioning, but why will there be no compensation if, in future, the number of days at sea is limited as a result of Government policy? If farmland is set aside, the farmer receives

compensation. If the time during which a fisherman can go to sea, and therefore the time during which he is able to produce is limited, why should he not receive compensation in the same way? The crew is paid on a share-fishing basis, so they need the revenue. The whole economics of a fisherman's enterprise are affected by such a limitation, but the Minister says that the intention is to reduce his catches because that time limitation is a conservation measure.
Why is the fisherman not compensated in the same way as the farmer? I do not see any provision for that in the Bill, although there is a provision to allocate £4 million to administer the scheme, which is only half the £8 million that the Government will contribute to the decommissioning scheme. The administration is fairly expensive, but there is no provision for compensation to fishermen.

Mr. Curry: First, let me correct the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is one of the great canards that the Government will contribute only 8 million to the scheme. Let me make it absolutely clear. Because of the way in which the Fontainebleau mechanism works, at least £20 million of British taxpayers' money will go to the £25 million scheme. The French scheme received £3 million of French taxpayers' money. Our scheme will be bigger and better than that operated in France because we shall allocate £20 million to it. I wish to put that on the record because it is frequently said that that is not the case. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with all the algebra to prove that that is so.
On compensation, it is not our intention that a fisherman should fall short of his legitimate quota because of the restrictions. We want to stop the discard and to control fish mortality. If it came to the point where it appeared that the quota could not be fulfilled, we would obviously wish to discuss with Brussels the possibility of relaxing the quota to enable it to be fulfilled. Tackling the problem of fish mortality is at the heart of the Bill.
I have been on my feet for a long time, so I should press on and cover the elements of the Bill which deal with scrutiny and the mid-term review. We operate within the framework of Community legislation, so I shall consider the main issues covered by that.
The Community is currently in the process of the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy. A copy of the Commission report forming the basis for the review is before the House. Subject to the European Court of Justice confirming the view of its Advocate General, we expect relative stability, which guarantees our fishermen a fixed share of fishing opportunities, to be maintained. We also expect the restrictions on access in the 0 to 12-mile zones and in the Shetland box, which are specifically subject to review, to be confirmed for the next 10 years. It seems likely, therefore, that no major changes of principle or to the framwork of the CFP will be made.
We are working for improvements in its implementation. Effort controls, such as we are introducing in the United Kingdom and which I have described earlier, will be an important element. We expect to see better enforcement and I have discussed enforcement with my French and Irish colleagues. It will be a theme of our presidency to try to ensure that we have better and more uniform enforcement, and further conservation measures will be introduced to reduce discards. Later this year, the


Commission will, we expect, make proposals for specific new legislation on this and other topics. Those proposals will be subject to scrutiny by the House in the usual way.
The measures are designed to preserve stocks for British fishermen. They are designed to recognise the importance of fisheries in the United Kingdom for national needs. We shall have to meet our targets—as other countries will have to meet theirs—and we want to have policies in place to meet to them in a way that best guarantees the future of our fishing communities and the jobs which depend upon them.
Fishing is not an industry that one should condemn to long-term decline. We are committed to taking those necessarily tough decisions which will give it a secure base for reconstruction and modernisation. However, it all begins with conservation. No fish equals no future. Without the natural resource, there is nothing—but with a properly managed resource there is a future that is as individualistic and challenging as that of any trade in the world. It is our duty and intention to safeguard that future. The Bill is part of that endeavour and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: There is no doubt that everyone in the House accepts the need for sensible and effective conservation measures to deal with the problems that our fisheries have faced for some years. The tragedy of the Bill is that it does not cover adequately the problem of conservation: in fact, it should be entitled the sea fish crisis management Bill. That is the Government's approach to a problem that is largely of their own making.
I find it incredible that the Minister talks of a market approach when he refers to a policy that will dictate the number of days that an individual fisherman can spend at sea. It is just like telling a large supermarket that it can open on two days a week only as part of a management policy. The Bill approaches the problem of overcapacity in our fleet not from the point of view of the market, but from a bureaucratic and strict management viewpoint.
The Bill fails to deal with overcapacity. The real problem with our fishing fleet is that there are too many boats chasing too few fish. We have discussed that for many years and hon. Members from both sides have recognised that problem and consistently argued for a sensible decommissioning scheme as the basis for dealing with it. After many years of debate, the Government have finally introduced a decommissioning scheme. What a scheme it is. It is a minnow, a real tiddler of a scheme when compared with the size of the problem. Only £25 million will be provided, and on the figures that I have seen, the capacity of the fleet will be reduced not by 5 per cent.£not a great amount itself—but by about 3 per cent. With such a small amount being provided, the sums available to individual fishermen may be so small that the scheme will have a low take-up and it will fail to attract those people who need reasonable compensation for them to leave the industry. In many cases, they were encouraged to invest in that industry by enlarging their vessels or building new vessels. They now find that they are being restricted in terms of the number of days fishing needed to be viable.
The Bill imposes tie-up conditions on our fleet, while fishermen in other member states, which have used proper decommissioning schemes, will be free to fish when our

fishermen are discriminated against. That is neither fair nor reasonable. Although I have listened carefully to the Minister, the fact remains that many other member states have reached their targets through other methods, which means that they do not have to suffer the restrictions to be imposed on our fishing fleets.
The Bill threatens the financial viability of some of our most energetic and efficient fleets and contains no choices. Under decommissioning schemes, people can choose whether to opt in or opt out. This measure will apply to every fisherman, whether he wants to put in a great deal of time or invest large sums in his boats.
There is no guarantee that the Bill is a genuine conservation measure. It may restrict fishermen to remaining in port at certain times of the year, but they might put even more effort into fishing on the days when they can fish, for example, by increasing their crews on those days.
The Bill also has safety implications. We have debated in the past the problem of fishermen being held up in port because of engine breakdowns through no fault of their own. They may run out of days allocated for fishing and may therefore be tempted to go to sea in unsuitable weather to keep up their track records. Those issues must be considered carefully.

Mr. Curry: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, first, that we shall apply the measure flexibly. In the event of bad weather or similar circumstances, as with the eight-day tie-up and the 135-day tie-up, we shall not penalise fishermen. Secondly, I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of extraordinarily bad weather over a sustained period so that a fisherman cannot fish during his full allocation of days at sea, that amount will not be deducted from his following year's allocation.

Mr. Morley: I am grateful for that categorical assurance, which will be well received by those concerned.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Does my hon. Friend share my doubts about the Minister's commitment? For example, the two 10-m boats at Redcar have to push off from the beach because we have no harbour pier. Is the Minister really saying that, in the event of bad weather at Redcar, he will give my two fishermen that assurance? Will the Department be that flexible?

Mr. Morley: That assurance has been given and is now on the official record. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is a doughty fighter for her fishing constituents—[Interruption.] Two are as important as any other number. She will ensure that that point is brought to their attention, and I am sure that other hon. Members from fishing ports will take note of the Minister's assurance.
The administration of the scheme is incredibly bureaucratic and its implementation will involve much extra expenditure. The Bill entails an extra expenditure of £4.4 million. I presume that that is for extra staffing, inspectors and administration. I wonder whether that sum could be better used by adding it to the 30 per cent. contribution that the Government must make to find a meaningful decommissioning scheme.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly press the Minister about how localised a storm must be? It seems that there will be total chaos.

Mr. Morley: For those who fish for a living, long periods of bad weather mean that they cannot get out to sea to pursue their legitimate activity. For them, the matter is fairly straightforward. We are aware of the problems that can be caused by bad weather, which is experienced by all fishermen from time to time. But there can be prolonged periods of bad weather. I am glad that the Minister has recognised that there can be such exceptionally bad circumstances and that he has assured us that fishermen will not be penalised because of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about financial assistance. When we debate the fishing industry and the agricultural sector, it is always the agricultural sector that receives financial support. The answer to over-capacity within the common agricultural policy is set-aside and support payments for farmers. The solution for over-capacity in the fishing industry is compulsory tie-up with no compensation whatever, but only restrictions on fishermen's rights to work. The Secretary of State returned from Brussels with an agreement on the CAP, which he hailed as a great success and which has involved much extra taxpayers' money. If the Minister considers it a great success to negotiate extra contributions from taxpayers for agricultural support, why cannot we have a similar success for the fishing industry? It would not involve an excessive amount of taxpayers' money but would ensure a stable and sustainable fishing industry.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that the set-aside system helps farmers and leaves them in a viable position, but the Government's proposals will make many fishing fleets financially non-viable and knock them out of business altogether?

Mr. Morley: Yes, I agree. If one wants to be totally ruthless in dealing with over-capacity, one way is to make those concerned bankrupt. That solution is not being applied to farmers through support payments—I do not argue that it should be—but it is certainly being applied to fishermen as a form of control.
The Bill leaves many technical questions unanswered. In all fairness, the Minister conceded that some difficulties needed to be looked at. I understand that the number of days at sea are based on 1991 levels. But what about those vessels that are currently less than 17 m and have a non-pressure stock licence and no record of the number of days that they have spent at sea? How will the number of days at sea be allocated to them? 
The Minister mentioned flagships. There has been a large increase in the number of flagships operating from foreign ports, particularly Dutch beamers, and we all know of the Spanish problem. How can flagships that operate from foreign ports be affected? How can the regulations be enforced when those flagships have a fishing licence, in the same way as boats from Grimsby, Maryport or Tynemouth, while operating from Spain or France? Will the Minister have an inspector in every European port to ensure that they comply with the regulations? How will the rules be applied in those circumstances? 
Compulsory tie-up in ports is a desperate solution to a desperate problem. It is an indictment of the Government that, after so many years, they have reached a stage where their only answer to the problem is compulsory tie-up. Their policy is also a form of back-door decommissioning,

allied with tradeable days at sea. It risks concentrating the amount of effort in the hands of a few companies. Moreover, further foreign fleets may operate under the British flag and buy up entitlement of days at sea. Those issues need to be considered carefully before we consider the Bill.
The Government cannot bring a Bill before the House in this way and expect our support. As part of the package we want a properly financed and effective decommissioning scheme for a permanent solution, not one with controls on a year-to-year basis. We want boats to be exported properly out of the EC zone. It depresses me that one of the solutions is seen as the scrapping of fishing boats because there is scope for exporting boats released from the fleet through decommissioning as part of an aid programme to developing countries. Not only would that permanently remove those boats from the European fleet, but it could become part of a meaningful and constructive aid package.
A proper package of conservation measures is needed, and we have supported some of the Minister's proposals—indeed, we have argued for them for a long time. We believe that there should be full consultation with the fishermen's organisations, so that we obtain their support, understanding and backing. We have long argued for an end to industrial fishing. The position is now so critical that our fishermen are being forced to tie up their boats in port compulsorily, and there is no longer a role for industrial fishing.
We must reinforce the concept of relative stability, particularly during the mid-term review of the common fisheries policy, and I welcome the Minister's comments on that. We must ensure that the preferential access to the 12-mile zone continues. I welcome the Minister's comments on that.
We must recognise the regional needs of fisheries around the coast. It is about time that we had a comprehensive coastal zone policy to meet the needs of our commercial fisheries when faced with competition and other coastal developments.
There must be proper enforcement procedures and we must ensure that other member states meet our standards. The Minister mentioned other countries. There are other, more constructive ways of reducing effort than making boats tie up in port. Has the Minister considered arguing in the European Community for fishermen who use large mesh to receive a special payment? That would reduce the catch of those fishermen, who would then receive compensation. In turn, that would result in larger fish being caught and there would be no discards. Fish stocks would slowly recover while the policy was implemented. The scheme would be costly, but if we can direct millions and millions of pounds towards the agricultural sector for agricultural restructuring, why cannot we afford modest payments for our fishing fleets around the coasts to ensure sustainable fisheries for the communities who rely on them? I have not heard the Minister advance that argument.
There is an argument for opposing the Bill outright, rather than amending it or pussyfooting around. In its present form, the Bill is unacceptable. Its proposals do not go far enough to deal with the fishing industry's problems. As the Minister rightly said, the fishing industry has been consulted on a series of measures and changes, some of which need careful consideration. The proposals include tradeability in terms of the days-at-sea limitations and


producer organisations. However, the deadline for consultation is not until 12 June, so the industry is still in a consultation period. But we are being asked, on 8 June, to pass a Bill that will give the Minister—no matter what he says—an open cheque to impose conditions on the fishing industry before the end of the consultation period. That is absolutely incredible—there should be more consideration of fishermen's views.
Ultimately, difficult and unpopular decisions about conservation may have to be made. The Minister acknowledged that fishermen have put forward proposals for a series of effective conservation measures, including square mesh, one-net rules, variations on by-catch, shellfish licensing and bans on twin and triple-rig prawn trawls. They deserve recognition for their proposals and should be given a guarantee that there will be full consultation until the deadline. We should not rush through the Bill before consultation is complete.

Mr. Curry: That is the most bogus of all the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Bill is an enabling Bill to confer the relevant powers. I should have thought that the House would be pleased that the Government attach such a high priority to fisheries that they have brought forward this measure as one of the first of the new Session. It does not cut across the details of implementation. We have made it absolutely clear that the link between decommissioning, effort control and all the other measures is not negotiatable. We have made it equally clear that the details of how we apply that policy are open to the fullest discussion, which remains our position.

Mr. Morley: I cannot accept that argument. The Bill gives the Minister enormous powers of intervention. While we may agree with some aspects of the Bill, such as increased fines for fishermen who break the regulations, if, as the Minister said, there are to be links between decommissioning and effort control, it is all the more reason to have meaningful discussions with the fishermen about how to apply the policy. There is no excuse for presenting a Bill with such powers before the completion of the consultation period. 1 have drawn to the Minister's attention the fact that the Bill contains major problems which have yet to be resolved. Time should have been spent resolving those problems before the Bill was brought to the House.
The Bill is not part of a proper, rational or effective conservation scheme, but a panic measure. It is an insult to the industry and the House. It is essential for the Government to withdraw the Bill and to bring forward a measure containing the elements of which we have spoken to ensure a stable, sustainable industry in a form that will command all-party support. The Bill fails to do that. It is ill-thought-out and draconian, and the industry has not been given time to respond. Fishermen have not been properly consulted to ensure that the measure is effective, and works well for the good of the industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call other hon. Members, I advise the House that, although Madam Speaker did not impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, I hope that hon. Members will show a degree of self discipline so that as many speakers as possible may be called.

Mr. David Harris: No one in the House has greater admiration for my hon. Friend the Minister of State than 1 have. I served with him in the European Parliament and believe that he is a good fisheries Minister and a good friend of the fishing industry. My view is backed by the actions that he has taken in the interests of fishermen, not just in my constituency, but throughout the country. However, 1 have the greatest reservations about the Bill and cannot support it in the Lobby tonight. There are many reasons for that, some of which have been rehearsed by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). The Bill's defects have also been highlighted in the barrage of interventions to which my hon. Friend the Minister was subjected during his speech.
The measure will result in an administrative nightmare. I cannot see how, even with an increase of 60 man years, such a system can be enforced and policed around the coasts. There is no chance of implementing this measure in respect of the wretched boats that are on our register but are Spanish or Dutch-controlled, or flag-of-convenience vessels of other countries. There is no way in which they will be subjected to a days-at-sea limitation. For that reason alone, I believe that there is ground for not supporting the Bill.
It goes further than that, however. My hon. Friend the Minister made a point of saying that the Bill was merely an enabling measure. I was glad when the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pounced on him; if he had not done so, 1 would have. Under cross-examination, my hon. Friend admitted that he, or his successors—he, of course, is a reasonable man, but his successors may be less reasonable—could impose any restriction that he or they pleased on days at sea without the matter returning to the House. I cannot agree with such a proposal: it is wrong and unrealistic. Moreover, action is to be taken unilaterally. Our fishermen will be subject to restrictions, whereas fishermen in most European countries probably will not.
It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Minister to say, as he did earlier, that the aim is to protect our own interests and our own fish stocks. It is true that, in some areas and some species, we have the overwhelming bulk of the quotas, but I am told that, in area 7—the south-west of England—our quotas amount to just 10 per cent. of total allowable catches. I believe that fishermen from other countries will continue to fish while our boats are tied up, and politically that is not on: there will be uproar among our fishermen if it happens. I would not mind so much if this were a European measure, imposed in uniform terms and enforced across the Community. I do not believe, however, that it is right to impose such a measure when other fishermen are not subject to the same restrictions.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend's assurance that he would implement the measure flexibly, taking account of all the difficulties encountered by fishermen; but, with respect, I do not feel that he is in a position to give such a pledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out, bad weather can be very localised. For example, there is a world of difference between the weather on the north coast of Cornwall and the weather on the south coast. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of my hon. Friend, and his administrators in the Ministry, to take account of such factors in implementing the restrictions.
Many hon. Members will remember the difficulties that we all encountered when milk quotas were introduced—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks). Those quotas were fixed according to a baseline. Farmer after farmer came to tell us, "That baseline caused me particular disadvantage, because of such-and-such a set of circumstances." If we fix the 1991 baseline in this enabling legislation and the measures that flow from it, exactly the same will happen: fisherman after fisherman will come to us and say, "During 1991 my boat had to be laid up, and I could not go to sea for such-and-such a reason." 
I was reassured to learn that an appeal system would be introduced, but I fear that that will add enormously to the administrative difficulties. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has considered what he is embarking on.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not an extraordinary move to establish an appeal system that has no statutory basis? No such system is included in the Bill.

Mr. Harris: That may be true, but I have great respect for my hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will set up such a system; indeed, he has given the House a pledge to that effect. I am merely saying that I expect the hearing and handling of such appeals to present enormous difficulties. After all, there will be a good many of them.
We all realise that conservation measures must be painful. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that regard, and I do not entirely accept the view of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations—from which we have all received representations—that the legislation will sound the death knell of our fishing fleet. I do believe, however, that it will cause difficulties for many fishermen—certain types of fisherman. We should also remember that some of the fishermen on whom my hon. Friend intends to impose restrictions—I am not quite sure how, but they may be imposed on a geographical basis and involve a large number of boats—will probably not be fishing against quota in respect of some species. I wonder about the logic of that.
What really frightened me, however, was my hon. Friend's statement that the powers in the Bill would enable him—or, rather, his successors; he said that he would not use them—to extend the restrictions to all types of fishing boat, however small. Is that really sensible? Is it defensible? Is my hon. Friend really saying that small boats operating from coves such as Penberth, in my constituency, should be affected? The sea is practically flat there, and any little swell means that the fishermen cannot put to sea. Are they to face even the possibility of restrictions when they have to pick their fishing days with such care? It simply is not on. I beg my hon. Friend to reconsider.
I accept that measures must be introduced and that, if they are to work, they must be painful. I also believe, however, especially in the present climate of distrust and difficulty among our fishermen, that such measures must be seen to be as fair as possible. There must be equity between different types of fisherman, and, especially, between our fishermen and those of other countries.
I do not believe that the industry will wear this, and I think that it is right not to wear it. The Bill is already anathema to our fishermen, and—as I said earlier—it will not receive my support.

Mr. Robert Hughes:: I believe that all of us, except hon. Members who are new to debates such as this, are experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again, trying to marry conservation issues with stability in the fishing industry. I have sad news for new Members: in 12 months' time, we shall be back again, examining the whole package and trying to find out where we are. Yet all of us want stability.
New Members will note another recurring theme. The processing side of the industry will constantly say that its needs are never considered. I appreciate that view; all too often in our debates, the really important people neglected turn out to be the consumers—and the consumers can secure a decent deal for a wholesome and healthy food only if there are fish to be caught. It is a circular argument.
I make no apology for saying that we can never solve the problems, however we view them, unless we can bring about stability on the catching side. That is the side on which I wish to concentrate. On 2 June, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)—sent me a letter which was probably sent to every Scottish Member. The letter was intended to be helpful; it set out the various aspects of Government policy, and the various other issues pertaining to the industry allied to the Bill. I am sorry to have to say to the Minister that the last two sentences of the letter show breathtaking complacency. He said:
These measures will give the United Kingdom the most comprehensive fisheries conservation and management policy in the European Community. They are based on the central recognition that conservation, capacity and effort controls have to he dealt with as complementary measures.
No one would quarrel with the last sentence but, as is so often the case, alas, the rhetoric does not match up to the reality of the proposals.
The Government resisted, week in and week out in the House during the last Parliament, calls for a decent decommissioning scheme. Finally, in the pre-election scramble for votes the Government decided that they had better do something, so they brought forward proposals for discussion.

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the letter is that included among those who in the past had called for an adequately-funded decommissioning scheme was the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

Mr. Hughes: I do not cast that in the Minister's face. Any Back Bencher who has become a Minister must have said something in the past which is then thrown in his face. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should not therefore be too hard on the Minister. Nevertheless, it is a good debating point, just like the Minister's final defence of acting unilaterally by invoking the well-liked principle of subsidiarity when it came to the European Commission.

Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Hughes: I am anxious not to give way too much, bearing in mind the strictures of the Chair about taking too long, since there is no 10-minute rule. This will be the last intervention that I shall allow.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that what the Minister was saying about subsidiarity was that we reserve the right to punish ourselves when nobody else is punishing themselves.

Mr. Hughes: I had better not be tempted to discuss self-flagellation, otherwise we shall all be confused.
We all agree that the industry's problems have got to be solved on a comprehensive basis, but—and it is a very big "but"—the trouble is that each constituent part of the package has to be viable and effective in its own right. It is a very old story: that the strength of the chain depends upon the strength of its weakest link. If all the links do not carry the same strength, the chain falls apart.
The Government's decommissioning proposals are inadequate in two respects. By almost common agreement the decommissioning scheme is insufficient in its scope and does not seriously address the reduction in fishing effort. The Government's scheme still fails totally to take any account of the fishermen whose jobs will disappear as a result of the decommissioning of fishing vessels. It is obvious—I do not know why we have to keep on driving the point home—that if a vessel can no longer fish the crew can no longer go to sea. They no longer have a vocation and they no longer have a livelihood. It remains essential, therefore, in my view, that compensation, either directly from the Government or through the European social fund—it makes no difference where the money comes from—should be made available to the fishermen. We shall continue to press that point upon Ministers for as long as it takes.
If we look just at the Government's proposals without regard to other matters, the decommissioning scheme will not work. The Government concede implicitly that the scheme will not work by itself. Therefore, they have brought into play another part of the package, which is that the fish producer organisations should be provided with the power to buy up the fishing track records of those who wish to leave the industry. That sounds all right, but it is clear that vessel owners will have to choose either to decommission their vessels under the decommissioning scheme or to sell their track record. They cannot do both. The trouble is that selling the track records does not bring about a reduction in fishing effort. It certainly brings about a reduction in the number of boats, but that is not the same thing. The bought-in capacity would be reallocated again—presumably sold—to the vessels that want to continue to fish.
What effect would that have on the skippers and crews that want to continue to fish? Would it lead to increased financial pressures on skippers, especially since the Bill is intended to reduce the number of days during which vessels can go to sea? How would that be determined? In my naivety—I apologise for not having understood previous briefings—I had understood that this would be applied sector by sector. It never occurred to me for one moment that fishing effort at sea would be determined boat by boat.
When I had to stand at the Dispatch Box I had a recurrent nightmare of trying to make some sense of the milk quota scheme. I said at that time that if a Labour Government had introduced the kind of bureaucratic nonsense to which the milk quota scheme led, Conservative Members would have been baying for the blood of Labour Ministers. I suspect that if positions had been reversed and the Labour party had been in

government and had introduced this Bill, the Conservatives would have roared their heads off about creeping socialism and bureaucratic red tape and would have said how impossible it was to introduce such a scheme boat by boat. It just cannot be done.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to the bad weather that can be encountered in north and south Cornwall. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will say that fishermen will argue, "The weather may be uniformly bad between the ports of Macduff, Banff, Portsoy, Whitehills and Buckie, but the harbours are different and it's safer to sail from one port in the same weather or to come back to that port in the same weather than to do so at the port next door." How is anyone going to monitor the scheme boat by boat? That is utter nonsense. The Minister will have to think this out clearly. I suspect that what lies behind all this is that the Government have always believed in decommissioning and in the reduction of fishing effort by bankruptcy.
As for the purchase of track records by the fish producer organisations, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any guidelines on the criteria for purchase? The Minister said that there would be no question of, for example, Humberside buying up Scottish quotas, or vice versa, and that it would be a mistake to think that that will happen. However, the Minister said that track records would be brought within the FPOs. That does not resolve the central problem that concerns fishermen—that wealthy sectors of the industry would be able to buy out the poorer sectors where fishing is part of real community life. Unless we are careful, the rich sectors will buy out the poor ones and communities will be destroyed.
The package is full of imponderables. I was grateful to the Minister for giving way so often during his speech until I realised what might have been his intention. Perhaps I am ascribing too Machiavellian an approach to him, but he may have thought that if he gave way often enough we should all be so confused that we would go away not having understood the Bill and other measures and given him an easy time, whereas in fact he is getting a fairly rough ride. The industry is obviously unhappy. The Minister will say that it always has been and that it always will find fault. That is true. The industry will always find something wrong with whatever is offered, but careful consideration shows that, more often than not, it has been right, and that must be taken into account.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation met today, I understand, to try to arrive at a cohesive and consensual response. It is unhappy about the one-net rule. The rule's advantage is that it avoids cheating, but a blanket approach can have deleterious effects. The Minister knows only too well of the prawn fleet's legitimate concerns.
Whatever the final basket of measures proposed, the Government will find that it will work only if it has the co-operation and assent of the industry. Ministers have frequently said, and they said so today, how much they value consultation with the industry. Why, therefore, are they introducing the Bill when the consultation process has not been completed? 
I was surprised that the Minister did not have a ready answer to that. The ready answer that he could have offered is that this is a Second Reading and that in Committee there will be plenty of time to amend the Bill in the light of recommendations. The fact that he did not use that argument suggests that his mind is made up, that


the consultation process is not worth the paper that it is written on and that by taking these enabling powers—this blank cheque—the House will be cut out of consultation. I do not object to the Minister consulting the industry, but he must also consult hon. Members and the people who represent fishermen.
I want to ask two questions that have not been asked thus far. First, what is happening about the extraordinary case that occurred in Stornoway in the past couple of weeks? It appears that if a foreign vessel comes in United Kingdom waters with the intention of fishing it is not breaching the law. That is curious. I am sure that the Minister will answer that point when replying to the debate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I should like to clear that up now. The hon. Member, who is experienced in fishing matters, will remember the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The procurator fiscal charged a boat for particular reasons. We are not appealing against the decision on that charge. We feel that other aspects of the Act can cover anything that is likely to happen again, and if foreign boats enter British waters we shall deal with them.

Mr. Hughes: That point will have to be considered in Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to table an amendment to probe it. The Minister cannot rest on what he appears to be saying—that the procurator fiscal brought the wrong charge. We need a firmer basis of law than that.
Secondly, what about fisheries protection? We hear a marvellous story in the press—I do not always believe what I read in the press—that MAFF will privatise its fishery protection service, which I believe it purchased from the Navy. What is meant by that, and will the Minister assure us that the protection of Scottish fisheries will not be privatised? It seems crazy to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar by privatising the industry when a Government-sponsored fishery protection fleet already exists.
I hope that I will not have to make a final plea again, but I fear that I will have to do so: may we, for goodness sake, achieve a system that provides stability so that the industry can plan and so that processors can have an adequate supply? Above all, unless we deal with this properly a wholesome healthy food will disappear from the housewife's budget. If that happens, we can forget about conservation because no one will buy fish and there will be no point in fishermen going to sea.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to make my first speech in the House. It gives me particular pleasure that you are in the Chair. I should like to record the number of my constituents who have said, "It is wonderful to see our Janet in the Chair." 
It is a nice convention of the House that I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ken Warren. Hon. Members who spent time with him on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry were never bored. Those who were kind enough or lucky enough to benefit from his many years as the hon. Member for Hastings, and latterly for Hastings and Rye,

will be aware of his tremendous record in serving his constituents and how much they respected and admired him for it.
I should like to take this opportunity briefly to mention Ken Warren's predecessor in Rye‑it was only after the boundary changes that he became the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye—Sir Bryant Godman Irvine, who recently died. It was with great sadness that I learned that news, but it was of great pleasure that he offered to help me in the election campaign.
Hastings and Rye is an historic constituency. My job was once done by six Members of Parliament, because at one time Rye, Winchelsea and Hastings had two Members of Parliament each. I am sure that they did not receive the amount of post that I receive every morning.
The Cinque Ports Confederation was set up because of our direct link with the fishing industry; Hastings, Winchelsea and Rye were members from an early age. My constituency is littered with remnants of defence mechanisms against hordes from across the water. Camber castle was set up by Henry VIII to repel the French. The Royal Military canal and the Martello towers were built to repel the French and pill boxes were built to repel the Germans. I hope that we shall never have to build such defences again.
However, because of those defences we have a marvellous tourist industry. It is ironic that the battle of Hastings is known throughout the world. The landing took place at Pevensey and the battle took place at Battle, not at Hastings. People come to see our Norman castle and all the other associated facets.
We therefore have a thriving industry of language schools, and I am glad to say that about 25 per cent. of our tourists come to language schools. It is nice to think that we are contributing to exporting the English language not only to west Europeans but to an increasing number of east Europeans, who recognise the need for fluent English.
My constituency is not only a tourist constituency. On Friday, I had the delightful opportunity of visiting one of the few hand-made brick factories in the country. It introduced me to the smile on the face of the hand-made brick. It produces bricks for the National Trust and makes the mathematical tile. For hon. Members who are not architects, the mathematical tile is used in building in Rye and Lewes.
At the other end of the industrial spectrum, we have a company called Computing Devices. In the Gulf war, its reconnaissance system was used on the Tornado aircraft and it is arguable that the war would not have proceeded as it did if it had not been for the company. However, that company is adjusting to other problems and it is ironic that one of its biggest contracts is for the European fighter aircraft. It is also chasing a contract for the Jubilee line, so the computing industry is living dangerously.
Although the constituency is successful, it suffers from poverty. We have a very high level of unemployment and our average pay is not only less than the national average wage but less than the south-east wage. We also have the problems associated with that—high levels of single-parent families, of homelessness and drug abuse. It may seem strange to say that many of those problems could be solved if the Government were to invest in the A21 and the A259. In his maiden speech about 20 years ago, my predecessor made the same point. I hope that it will not be


another 20 years before I can stop talking about the A21 and the A259, but I promise to bore the House as long as necessary.
One of the constituency's significant industries is the fishing industry. As I said, the Cinque Ports Confederation came about because of the industry, and that has not changed. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that, in a year's time, new hon. Members would be suffering from déjà vu. When my godmother, the redoubtable Hon. Pat Hornsby-Smith, introduced me to the Chamber for the first time, I witnessed a debate on the then White Fish Authority, so I am already suffering from déjà vu.
Unlike some hon. Members, I shall support the Bill, although the two fishing fleets in Hastings and Rye have significant worries. They are inshore fishing fleets, and the Hastings fleet consists entirely of boats of less than 10 m. It welcomes the extension of the licence, but, like every other fishing fleet, it is worried about the potential extension of the licence to cover days at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that there will be flexibility in how days at sea are recorded and, as the fleet of under-10 m boats have no days logged, it will know from now on how closely it must log its days at sea to get the best possible deal should there ever be an extension to under-10 m boats.
Another worry is decommissioning which, under the present system, does not apply to the fleet, but should it ever do so it may face the difficulty of reducing its size. The fleet says that if its size is reduced too often, it will have to put to sea in coracles, which is not what any of us would wish. Rye has a 1O-to-17-m fishing fleet, which is specially caught by the days-at-sea extension. It is keen to ensure that we cover the issue of flexibility—and I agree with every point made about weather and conditions in 1991—but, as I understand it, the fleet does not have to log its catch if it has not caught precious stocks. Therefore, there will be an automatic under-logging of its days at sea, and I should be grateful for an assurance that that will be taken into account.
It is interesting that Rye Harbour is the only harbour owned by the National Rivers Authority. The NRA is trying to move our historic fishing fleet from one part of the harbour to another which is, of course, causing the fishermen enormous problems. I hope that the fact that the NRA owns one harbour may change very soon so that it is no longer involved in a business in which it should not have been involved in the first place.
Finally, may I mention the problem of a boat-builder in my constituency who was caught when the first decommissioning system was introduced and he had two 30-m boats on his stocks. He had orders for four 10-m boats, all of which have been cancelled. The bank has withdrawn financing and that withdrawal has not only made it impossible for him to carry on boat-building but has made it exceedingly difficult for him to get financing for any other business. Therefore, he was caught, to use an election phrase, in a double whammy.
It would be nice to have an assurance from the Minister that that case will be considered seriously so that the boat-builder involved can continue in business as, historically, the fishing fleet, the fishermen and everyone involved in the industry in Hastings and Rye have been entrepreneurial and self-sufficient. I should hate to think of that tradition coming to an end.

Mr. James Wallace: May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on her eloquent maiden speech. She paid tribute to her predecessor who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and it was recognised by hon. Members of all parties that neither he nor his Committee shirked tackling controversial issues. The House owes him a great debt for the way in which he dealt with issues such as the Iraqi super-gun and, from a Scottish perspective, the future of the steel industry in Scotland.
The hon. Lady gave us an insight into the issues with which she has to grapple in her constituency. As fisheries spokesman for my party, I went to Hastings about 15 months ago and met representatives of the industry there. I know that she will be very well briefed on fishing issues as the industry there is well able to articulate its case, and I look forward to hearing contributions from the hon. Lady in future fishing debates and, indeed, in other debates.
The Bill is short but, nevertheless, important for the industry. I think that it is common ground among hon. Members that conservation is acknowledged to be of supreme importance if the industry is to have a future. The Minister rightly acknowledges that many of the organisations that represent the fishing industry have in recent years acted constructively by suggesting specific measures and, above all, by arguing for a decommissioning scheme which at long last, in the immediate run-up to an election, the Government were prepared to allow but only—as I shall show later—in a very limited way.
We believe that the amount of money put on the table for decommissioning is insufficient and the fact that it has strings attached—as the Bill shows—is unsatisfactory. The Minister took the opportunity to claim that, far from there being only £7.5 million put into decommissioning from United Kingdom resources, the figure was nearer £20 million because of the Fontainebleau agreement. Although it has been raised on many occasions when decommissioning has been debated, one question has never been answered: how much will the Inland Revenue receive from fishermen who opt for decommissioning? We need that information if we are to make a proper analysis of how much it will cost the Government.
Even allowing for the Minister's qualification, there is a perception in the industry that the measure is far too small to have a worthwhile effect on reducing the capacity of the fleet to bring it more into line with the fishing opportunities. The fact that there is a need for the Bill to enable the Government to take powers to restrict days at sea is an admission that what they are doing in decommissioning is insufficient to meet the multi-annual guidance programme targets, which is why they are having to link decommissioning to the restriction of days at sea.
An important point which has already been mentioned and which is also covered in the reasoned amendment to be moved in due course by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that there has been inadequate consultation on the Bill and the measures announced by the Government on 27 February. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said, the responses to the consultation period are due in on 13 June and here we are debating the Second Reading on 8 June.
The Minister sought to give an answer similar to that given by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in a letter on 2 June to Scottish Members, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). He says in the letter:
The industry is being consulted on the detailed application of these policies. The Fisheries Bill is an enabling measure which would give Ministers powers to restrict the number of days fishermen may spend at sea.
Not only the Opposition but Conservative Members, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) acknowledged, should be concerned about giving Ministers enabling powers. It is not a light matter. One of our functions as parliamentarians, whether on fisheries matters or on any other subject, is continually to hold the Executive to account. That means being very careful before we, as the House of Commons, give them powers that they can then operate in a way for which, as the Minister suggested, they will not have to answer to the House. The Minister will not have to answer to the House before he makes detailed conditions attaching to any licence about days at sea.
When the Minister said that there were more than 3,400 individual licences, I had the impression that we were talking about the potential for different conditions to attach to each licence as opposed to there being conditions that would attach to certain classes or to certain areas. That opens up the prospect of an appalling bureaucratic and administrative nightmare. It is estimated in the Bill that an additional £4.4 million will be spent on enforcement. I do not believe that that is the end of it because the Bill does not refer to the appeals mechanism which the Minister announced. I am not sure whether an appeals mechanism requires statute; we may be able to probe that matter in Committee.
The hon. Member for St. Ives pointed out that, when milk quotas were introduced, almost everyone had individual circumstances which made them different. I am sure that the question will also arise with fishermen. Some hon. Members have mentioned the weather and there will no doubt be fishermen somewhere who had to tie up for three or four extra days in 1991 because they had to return to port to attend a funeral or for some other reason.

Mr. Salmond: The compulsory tie-up.

Mr. Wallace: Indeed; the compulsory tie-up is another reason.
All hon. Members who have constituencies involving the fishing industry must have discovered that it is already almost a nightmare for anyone to work out exactly what the various conditions are. They depend on what percentage catches fishermen had in 1990 if they come into certain categories. There have been certain derogations according to gear options. The conditions differ according to species.
When the milk quota regulations were introduced, I recall saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that our late hon. Friend, David Penhaligon, said that a farmer probably needed a Queen's counsel before he went out to milk the cows. I suspect that fishermen will be in dire need of having in-house or on—board legal advice before they put to sea. We are creating a bureaucratic nightmare in the Bill which

could be avoided if the Government were prepared to grasp the nettle and to put adequate resources into a decommissioning scheme.
The Minister said that the Government would consult and that those consultations would be taken into account in the detail. One assumes that the Bill will go into Committee next Tuesday. Perhaps the Minister will inform the House later if the Government have any other thoughts. Next Tuesday is not long after this Friday, and there will not be much time to give proper consideration to any detailed submissions.
Even though the Government, with good intent, have said that they are prepared to consult, there is a problem. An illustration of this is the implementation of the one-net rule, which has especially been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). The one-net rule has been mentioned in many of the industry's submissions on conservation measures, and there will always be many important qualifications attached to it.
The qualifications relate especially to the by-catch arrangements which go with the use of a 70 mm net for the nephrops fisheries. The industry has said that there must be changes in the by-catch arrangements before the one-net rule is acceptable. Instead of that, the Government have gone ahead unilaterally and have introduced the one-net rule. They have not taken sufficient account of the qualifications that the industry always said should go along with the one-net rule. I know that the reason given is that the United Kingdom Government cannot change the by-catch rules on their own and that such a change requires Community endorsement.
I hope that the Minister will state clearly that the Government intend to press for such changes in the European forum, not least when they have the opportunity to do so during Britain's presidency in the next six months. To hear that the Government intend to press for such changes would be of considerable benefit and reassurance to the industry, especially to fishermen who would be caught by the one-net rule. They hope that the Government will postpone to 1 January 1993 the introduction of the measure.
I turn now to the issue of days at sea. I have already said that we believe that it is wrong that the issue should be the strings attached to the decommissioning proposal. Hon. Members have also asked whether the European Community will accept such a measure as a means of fulfilling MAGP targets. Have the Government any assurance on that? The hon. Member for St. Ives has made the point strongly that our industry will take it badly if it is subject to increasing tie-ups while industries from other Community countries are free to fish in the same waters without such restrictions.
The point has also been raised about whether any other industry could be expected to accept the sterilisation of its assets without adequte compensation. Contrasts have been made with the position in agriculture, where those who have now been effectively compelled to set aside land have been compensated for doing so. That is a question of surplus capacity in land; here we have a question of surplus catching capacity.
The Minister gave an interesting answer. He sought to make a distinction by saying that there is a quota in the fishing industry and that the fisherman would catch his quota anyway. That raises even more fundamental questions about why we are to have tie-up days at all if the


quotas will be caught anyway. We need a proper explanation of what the Minister meant because there seems to be a denial of economic efficiency. It appears that the Government are adopting the easy option when it would be worth while to try other measures, such as an adequate decommissioning scheme.
Various reasons have been given to explain why the days-at-sea restrictions are not wholly satisfactory. Safety considerations have been aired in a number of debates. I pointed out to the Minister, when he was so willing to take interventions, that proper consideration should be given to a boat that had to steam back to its home port or put into port for repairs.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North that hon. Members may say things when they are on the Back Benches and then have them cast up when they become Ministers. The hon. Member for Dumfries is now able to do something about the matter. 1 am not trying to catch him out; I hope that he will now use his good offices. I remind him of what he said on 5 March 1991—

Sir Hector Monro: It was very good stuff.

Mr. Wallace: Indeed, it was very good stuff and I am sure that the Minister will enjoy my repeating it. He said:
We all know that we cannot amend the instrument; we can only reject or accept it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the interpretation of the regulations and be flexible. My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the sea time between the port where the fish have been landed and the journey to the home port. A vessel may land fish in Peterhead while its home port may be Lossiemouth or Burghead. The journey back to home port is a dead sea time during which no fishing takes place, but that time must count towards the eight days."—[Official Report, 5 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 241.]
The Minister was spot on. I remember the speech well, and I am sure that, now that he is in a position to encourage such flexibility, we can rely on him to do so.
I think that it is widely accepted that vessels of less than 10 m in length should now come within the licensing regime, although, again, we must remember that we enter dangerous ground if we give the Government open-ended powers. The Minister said that he did not at present intend to extend the days-at-sea restrictions to vessels of less than 10 m in length. The trouble is that a much more unreasonable Minister may follow in the hon. Gentleman's shoes, in which case that assurance would be worthless. That is why it is important that we should be careful about granting Ministers such open-ended powers.
On the question of quota trading, it has been clear that the idea of individual tradeable quotas is something about which many hon. Members have great reservations because of the possibility of their being concentrated in relatively few hands. The Minister sought to reassure us, but we should like to know more about what he has in mind with regard to producer organisations taking in track record. Does he envisage the producer organisations holding on to their share and distributing it annually among their members? Will the share be held within a community for future generations of fishermen? If the idea is to try to maintain fishing activity within a particular community, do the Government have any idea of the way forward for communities such as those in Orkney, in my constituency, where there is no particular producer organisation linked to the community and where vessels belong to a variety of producer organisations? 
With regard to the mid-term review, there is widespread agreement on the need for relative stability. Will the Under-Secretary amplify the statement that the Minister made in his opening remarks that provisions regarding the Shetland box would be confirmed? Did he mean that they would be confirmed as they are at present? What is the Government's response to the suggestion, which I support, that the box should be geographically extended and that there should be greater restrictions on the number of vessels that may enter and operate in it than has been the case for the past 10 years? 
Finally, may I propose that a suitable and pragmatic way forward would be to refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee? That would allow the industry and others to make representations and give evidence, which members of the Committee could then consider. Given the sweeping powers available to Ministers under the Bill and the lack of time for adequate consultation, it would be a sign of good will and good faith on the part of the Government—a sign that they mean what they say about taking into account the detailed representations of the industry—if they accepted that suggestion. The Bill would be well suited to the Special Standing Committee procedure, and I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation and of consultation, in the true meaning of the word, that course will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Neville Trotter: It is a particular pleasure to be the first Conservative Member to speak following the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). She and I have met before and I have no doubt that she will bring to our deliberations the same wit, good humour and ability that Ken Warren always displayed. It is a particular pleasure to see hers among old and familiar faces here today.
It is less of a pleasure to take part in a debate with the Bill as its subject. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) made a powerful speech outlining the concerns that are widely felt about the measure before us. We must, of course, be serious about the need for conservation. Anyone with any sense and with any knowledge of the industry accepts that, but there must be proper management, and I welcome the fact that the Government have produced a package.
I also welcome the fact that we are at last to have a decommissioning scheme. My own view was that such a scheme was inevitable and that it was simply a question of how soon it came into being. There remains the question of its adequacy or otherwise. I had intended to ask the Under-Secretary of State the extent to which he saw that decommissioning scheme leading to a reduction in capacity. In answer to earlier cross-questioning, he gave a figure of only 5 per cent. That seems to me to be a very small reduction, given the figures that are bandied around in connection with the possible extent of overcapacity in the industry. The figures that I have seen range from 12 per cent. through 20 and 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. I should have thought that 40 per cent. was on the high side, but 5 per cent.—if that is, indeed, the reduction that will result from decommissioning—seems very modest, and seems to leave far too much overcapacity to be dealt with by other technical measures.
One of the sad facts about today's debate is that the Bill is regarded as having been introduced with improper


haste. I realise that it is an enabling Bill and that it has the whole of its parliamentary proceedings ahead of it. In my view, however, it would have been much more sensible to wait until the consultation period ended on 12 June. There will, of course, be time for views to be taken into account during the Bill's later stages, but in view of the difficulties facing the industry it was perhaps insensitive to introduce the Bill at this point.
I remain uncertain as to the effects that the Bill will have. On the one hand, we hear that it will put a large number of fishermen out of business; on the other, we are told that there will be more intensive effort and therefore no reduction in the total catch. I am therefore somewhat confused about the likely outcome. The Minister said that if the Bill resulted in too intensive an effort he might have to go back to Brussels. I could not quite understand how Brussels entered into the consideration of the Bill. As I understand it, it is a national move not reflected elsewhere in the Community. That point has been strongly made by Members on both sides of the House. It is essential that there should be fair competition between our industry and others in Europe.
That brings me to the question of enforcement and the future of the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron. I understand that in Scotland the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries operates some vessels of its own, proving that it is possible for civilian vessels to fulfil the role. We are all aware that the squadron is held in extremely high regard by the industry and we would certainly not want the standard of enforcement to fall. We need to ensure that those from abroad who compete against our industry do so in accordance with the rules. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will refer in his winding-up speech to the suggestion that there is to be a phasing out of the Royal Navy's excellent capability and tell us a little more about the Government's proposals.
I think that the word "draconian" was correctly used to describe the powers which can be taken under the Bill. I do not believe that they will be used in a draconian way, but there is a danger that they could. I seek an assurance that such powers would never be used without a debate in the House, on each occasion on which their exercise is sought. That is a perfectly reasonable request and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it positively.
This is a Bill of great significance for the industry, which is facing a difficult time, as it has throughout my time in the House. We now have the mid-term review hanging over us, and that is probably the most important issue facing the industry. I believe that the powers under the Bill will be sensibly and fairly applied by the Ministers now responsible, but there is a danger that at some future stage they may not be. We need to know a great deal more about the details of the Government's view of the implementation of the powers that they propose to take.
I am concerned that fishermen will have to give 12 hours notice if they wish to register themselves as being in port. That will mean that they cannot take advantage of the weather in choosing the days on which their vessels will be laid up. I am sure that all of us will want to ensure that there is no compulsion to go to sea in dangerous conditions simply to comply with what is regarded as a negative rule.
I welcome the proposal on decommissioning. All those active in the industry and I have been campaigning for that for a very long time, but we should spare a thought for the crews of the vessels concerned. The owners will obtain compensation, but what about the crews? Those crews might need retraining. To make a local point, we have an excellent training school in North Shields which is not replicated over a great distance north and south. Places like the North Shields training school should be encouraged to expand their traditional training of fishermen to retraining those who may give up their time at sea as a result of the introduction of the decommissioning scheme.
The Bill is necessary as part of an overall package. However, I share the doubts expressed so admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives about the extent, in theory, of the power being taken in the Bill. I hope that during the passage of the Bill there will be assurances which will enable it to be seen as positive rather than negative as is feared by the industry at present.

7 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, whilst acknowledging the need for conservation measures, fails to make provision for any compensation for effort limitation in terms of the days at sea restrictions; deeply regrets that the Government have chosen, unnecessarily, to make sea days limitation a prerequisite for a full decommissioning scheme
for the fishing fleet; expresses concern that the Government is proceeding with this legislation during a consultation period; and calls on the Government to postpone the legislation until such time as it has been able to take stock of any contributions made to the consultation process.
I noted with some interest the slightly different attitude displayed by the Minister of State when he opened today's debate. He is normally noted for some degree of truculence. I found his contribution today to be positively mild in comparison. I can conclude only that he was almost begging for support, given the weakness of the Bill.
I welcome three things, the first of which is the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait). She said that she would have to do the work of six Members of Parliament in her constituency. If she represents the fishing industry diligently, that ratio will certainly continue with regard to her work in Parliament. More seriously, she referred to low pay in her constituency. That reference was refreshing and welcome because low pay has not always been the highest priority of Conservative Members. If the hon. Lady continues to represent the low paid in her constituency, and particularly the low-paid workers in the fish processing sector, she will make some welcome contributions to our debates on the fishing industry.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that as a by-product of the Bill we are having a full day's debate on the fishing industry. The debate will be well supported. However, it is a source of some regret that the usual channels managed to synchronise this debate with a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee, which has put so many Scottish Members with constituency fishing interests—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—in the difficult position of trying to be in two places at the same


time. The needs and requirements of Scottish Members should be borne in mind when such arrangements are made.
Thirdly, I welcome to the Government Front Bench the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is responsible for fisheries in Scotland. His record in the fishing industry has already been mentioned and I hope that I am not damning him with faint praise when I say that hon. Members from fishing constituencies in Scotland hope for a rather more responsive attitude to our comments in the Chamber than perhaps we received from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was the hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Commons fisheries spokesman.
Even at this early stage, there are danger signs that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in the process of changing from poacher to gamekeeper. We all remember his vigorous speeches from the Opposition Benches in defence of the fisheries industry. The letter that I received from the Under-Secretary of State on 2 June, to which two hon. Members have already referred, was a sign of an intellect in transition in respect of the hon. Gentleman's stance on the fishing industry.
The hon. Gentleman's previous remarks about the industry have been trenchant and robust, but in contrast the letter of 2 June casts a view of the industry which seems to suggest that everything in the past wee while has been a record of sweetness and light. The letter suggested that there is now an elegant inter-relationship in the industry between technical conservation, capacity constraints and effort control, and that we have the best fisheries policy in the best of all worlds. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State drafts his own letters and takes a more forceful role as a Minister, I am sure that he will cast his mind back to his own recollection—a memory that 1 share—of the real history of fishing policy over the past four years.
I remember that four years ago the Scottish Fishermen's Federation produced a raft of conservation measures and appealed for support for some excellent suggestions, but the Government's response was not, as the Under-Secretary of State suggested in his letter, one of constructive appraisal. At first, the Government pretended that the proposals did not exist. There was a full year's hiatus while the Government demanded that the industry put some conservation proposals on the table when the industry had already released a very extensive conservation document.
The Government then went through a secondary phase of blaming Brussels for the mistakes in terms of fisheries policy. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland has joined us. The epitome of that strategy occurred during the compulsory continuous tie-up scheme when Brussels was blamed for the eight-day tie-up, despite the fact that the Secretary of State had described it in this House as another sensible proposal.
The Government also decided to pick and choose which conservation measures to take from the industry's proposals. A good example of that from today's debate is the one-net rule. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation did not propose a one-net rule without the attendant change in the by-catch arrangements which would make that acceptable to the industry. The Government's current approach is not so much a carrot and stick approach as a stick and then the carrot approach. We have primary

legislation before us on effort limitation but there is a consultation period in respect of the decommissioning proposals.
The track record in the past four years has not, as the Under-Secretary of State was perhaps forced to suggest in his letter to Scottish Members, been one of sweetness and light and accord in the industry. The track record has been one of exceptionally shabby treatment of one of Scotland's great natural resource industries.
I have agreed with the Minister of State on very few things in fisheries debates over the past three years or so in which he has been a fisheries Minister. I cannot think of a single measure or occasion when we have been anything but almost diametrically opposed in respect of his proposals for the industry, with the sole exception of the 80 mm square mesh panel. For a few brief weeks the Minister of State promoted that very hard. However, after mumblings about it at one Fisheries Council meeting, it was abandoned as a compulsory feature of policy. It now seems to be even disappearing from the industry's research projects.
I do not believe that the Government's track record in the industry accords with the new view of the Under-Secretary of State. At best, the measures on fishing policy have been perverse, often having exactly the opposite effect to that which was originally intended. They have certainly all been confusing.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked questions about the maze of regulations which now afflict the white fish fleet. Perhaps I can help him by explaining the no fewer than five different standings under which boats in the white fish fleet can currently sail. For example, a white fish boat could sail with a minimum mesh size of 100 mm and a square mesh optional panel of 90 mm. Alternatively, in the directed whiting fishery, the mesh would be 90 mm. If, on the other hand, the boat fished west of Scotland, it might sail with a minimum mesh size of 80 mm with a square mesh panel of 80 mm. As an alternative to the 135-day tie-up scheme, a vessel could sail with a minimum mesh size of 110 mm and an optional square mesh panel of 100 mm and 67 tie-up-days or a minimum mesh size of 120 mm and an optional square mesh panel of 110 mm and no tie-up days. There are no fewer than five different standards for boats within the white fish fleet in relation to technical conservation.
Therefore, a boat could sail with 100 mm nets, 90 mm nets, or 80 mm nets depending on which area of the fishing grounds it is pursuing. On a cod end, a boat could have a limit of 100 meshes or no limitation at all, depending on the geographical area in which it is fishing. With regard to square mesh panels, depending on the geographical area, a boat could have a 90 mm optional square mesh panel, an 80 mm mandatory square mesh panel, or no requirement at all. In terms of strengthening bags with top-side chafers, there are no restrictions or no overlapping panel, once again depending on the area in which a boat is fishing.
All those regulations affect the white fish fleet at present. It is little wonder that many people in the industry believe that they are being snowed under by regulations which make a sensible framework of policy virtually impossible. It is only surprising that the enforcement proposals will involve additional expenditure of only —4 million. It is equally unsurprising that it is proving impossible to police present regulations and measures when there is such enormous complexity.
With such a track record, the Government should start to display just a little humility in their approach to the industry. The argument that the timing of this Bill does not really matter, that we are proceeding with primary legislation during a consultation period because this is just an enabling measure on which we shall get the details later, is one of the weakest arguments that we have heard even from the present Government. Unless we know the policy framework under which the Minister is to pursue his enabling measure, how on earth can we judge whether it is right and proper to give him the powers for which he is asking? 
At the very least, the measure should be delayed until after the consultation period. The idea of a consultative period sits very uneasily with the decision to go forward with the unilateral imposition of the one-net rule. As has already been noted, it is having the most perverse effect of setting off a stampede into the white fishery.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that he will respond to our concerns. I hope that before he sums up the debate he will reflect on how ironic it is to propose legislation on effort limitation while simultaneously, as a by-product of that unilateral imposition, actually increasing effort in the very sector in which he is trying to limit it. The Government are enforcing a unilateral measure in respect of the one-net rule. There is no excuse, pretext, alibi or claim that the measure must go to a Fisheries Council meeting. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to say, "We shall think again about the one-net rule to see whether we can get through the by-catch changes which have been proposed for so long by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and see whether the proposal can be implemented properly rather than causing the chaos, confusion and the undesirable, perverse effects currently occurring around the coast of Scotland." 
As the House will note from our amendment, we also deeply resent the linkage element within the Government's fisheries policy. If, in the teeth of opposition by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is now accepted that decommissioning is a legitimate and sensible measure to be part of the overall fisheries policy, surely that measure should be accepted and promoted in its own right as a stand-alone measure and should not depend on the industry swallowing the unacceptable pills in the Bill and in the introduction of transferable quotas.
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that certain aspects of the decommissioning scheme need to be looked at. Overall funding levels do not compare with what was available to other European fleets. The Minister of State said that the scheme that he is working to introduce is more powerful in financial provision than that which had been available to the French fleet. He did not mention the £130 million structural assistance which has gone to other Community fleets in the past three years but which has not been available to United Kingdom fishermen because of the Government's obduracy in refusing to introduce a proper decommissioning scheme. There must be a provision to compensate the crews of fishing vessels.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I do not always agree on every aspect of fisheries policy, but I have been very happy to support his

campaign for justice for crews in the previous decommissioning scheme about eight years ago. It would be absolute folly, in pursuing a new decommissioning scheme, once again to make no provision for the crews of fishing vessels.
It is deeply resented in the industry that a sensible proposal which has been agreed on the Floor of the House and by most of the fishing industry can be introduced only if and when the industry is prepared to accept the unacceptable, as contained in the measure and in the proposal to move to transferable quotas.
The Minister of State claimed that the transferable quota proposal was not his "pet project", but rather an attempt to introduce market mechanisms into the fishing industry. Hon. Members who have followed the fortunes of the fishing industry in the past few years know all too well that the proposal in the consultation document is an uneasy compromise between the Scottish Office, which has wanted decommissioning for some years but has been resisting transferable quotas, and MAFF in London, which has wanted transferable quotas and market mechanisms but has been resisting decommissioning. The agreement between the two Departments has been to give the industry both. Unless the industry has both, the uneasy compromise between the two Departments will fall apart. I do not see why the industry should be made the victim of the fact that the various fisheries Ministers in their respective Departments cannot agree on fisheries policy and therefore have to browbeat the industry into accepting the unacceptable for the carrot of a decommissioning scheme.
The Minister of State says that transferable quotas are acceptable because it is not really a free market and the measure will be restricted to producer organisations. It is strange to argue for the introduction of market mechanisms in the fishing industry and then to defend that introduction on the basis that it is not really a free market after all. Hon. Members who represent fishing communities are extremely concerned that this will be merely the thin end of the wedge in terms of the final introduction of individual transferable quotas. Eventually, it will lead us—as it has led elsewhere in the world fishing community, for example, in the Bay of Fundy herring fishery in Canada —to a concentration of all quotas in a few hands, rather like the pelagic fleet at present; the white fish fleet will move down the same road, leading to possible destruction of the community-based, share fishing industry of Scotland.
I hope that the Government have noted the opposition on both sides of the House and will take the opportunity to think again about their attitude to the fishing industry. I was struck by the vigorous criticism of the Government's proposals by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). It took my mind back to his speech on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, when he made an extremely effective and equally vigorous denunciation of part of the Government's proposals. I remember being rather disappointed, however, that when it came to a vote the hon. Gentleman did not fully follow through the logic of his remarks. Conservative Members who, as a result of lobbying by their respective community fisheries, have serious doubts about the impact and timing of the legislation have available to them an amendment which would send the Government "homeward to think again."

Mr. Phil Gallie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to make this, my first House of Commons speech. Thank you also for accepting that I have been in and out of the Chamber attending the Scottish Grand Committee which was organised as an extension at fairly short notice at popular request. I might point out that it finished well over an hour ago.
I shall comply with the traditions of the maiden speech, particularly by referring to the pleasurable news which came out at the weekend about my predecessor George Younger, now Lord Younger. It is particularly pleasing to know that his experience will be retained in another place. The valued knowledge that he has gained will be put to good use in our country in the years ahead, I feel sure. His honour is well earned. He was Member of Parliament for Ayr for 28 years. My contact with the electorate on the doorsteps showed a great deal of admiration and respect for George Younger.
There are special thanks for George Younger in my constituency for many things, perhaps none more important than our new hospital, the Ayr hospital, which was opened by the Prime Minister just last week. It is an excellent facility, built to time and built to cost. It is an excellent example of great Scottish civil engineering. Scotland is reputed for many aspects of excellence in engineering. The hospital was planned when George Younger was Secretary of State for Scotland.
The existence of the Craigie teacher training college in my constituency is also thanks to George Younger. It had been threatened with closure by Governments of opposing colours but has been retained thanks to the efforts of George Younger. British Aerospace, too, has been under threat at times, but it is now building Jetstream 31 and Jetstream 41, the only aircraft designed and constructed in Scotland for many years.
British Aerospace was also persuaded to stay in Prestwick by none other than George Younger. Prestwick airport is its base. It is often the only airport in Scotland— and probably in England—to remain open when skies are cloudy and the fog rolls over. The open skies policy presents new opportunities for Prestwick airport, particularly now that a new local company has been established to run it. Who is the chairman? None other than Lord Younger.
Ailsa Perth shipbuilders, which is very much involved in the fishing industry, was at one time threatened by closure under the dead hand of nationalised industry but was saved through a workers co-operative supported by George Younger. It is now prospering, and I suggest that it will do well in the years ahead.
Not only George Younger's constituents have reason to be grateful to him. As a junior Scottish Office Minister and as Secretary of State for Scotland he served the country well. He was recognised as a strong, determined Secretary of State and an achiever. Not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom we owe him a debt, for as Secretary of State for Defence he proved equal to the task. Perhaps one point to remember is his background in the Army and his experience in saving the Argylls. That is a point for our present Secretary of State for Defence, another former excellent Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). Perhaps he should

take on board some of George Younger's thoughts in respect of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers.
My constituency of Ayr has 15 miles of golden beaches. It has two harbours—Ayr fishing and trading harbour, and Troon, where a safe haven provides good mooring for our fishing fleet. Fifteen miles inland good quality farmland embraces the towns of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon and the villages of Loans, Symington, Dundonald, Craigie, Monkton and Tarbolton. It is, to say the least, the heart of Burns country. Robert Burns, the United Kingdom's most celebrated poet, described Ayr people as, "Honest men and bonnie lasses". He was right. Burns was many things but never a fisherman. He was an excise man. Perhaps if he had to take on board today's Bill, he might have been one of the monitors that we seek.
The people of Ayr have a wide range of skills and interests—from city commuters to foundry workers, and from aircraft designers to fishermen. Recently, European Monitors were established in Prestwick freeport. Their reason for settling there, apart from the infrastructure—which is good but could be better, especially if the A70 was turned into a trunk road to benefit our industries as well as fishing—was the excellence of our people. European Monitors are welcome in Ayr.
I also welcome the conservation intentions in the Bill. Many of the measures relate principally to activities in the North sea, but their effects and requirements are of vital importance to the west coast fishermen and especially those on the Clyde. Prawn fishing in those areas runs the risk of over-exploitation. There is a real problem and a risk, not from the traditional fishermen of the area but from fishermen from other other locations. Prawn fishing is key to the activities at Ayr harbour. Loadings are important, but the export aspect is also of great import. There is also an impact on our tourist industry, on which Ayrshire depends. The harbour is a key attraction for tourists throughout the year.
As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, the Clyde fishermen have already taken their own conservation measures. They have imposed a voluntary weekend ban on fishing. Fishermen from the rest of Scotland comply with that ban but, sadly, not all fishermen do so. Some foreign interests still do not observe the ban. I welcome the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that this voluntary ban would be taken into consideration in future.
It is hard to understand the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party condemning the efforts at conservation, particularly in view of the history of discussions in Europe in which it was suggested that tie-up was the thing. British Ministers opposed that vigorously and we now have achieved a flexible solution.
I draw the attention of the House to the single-rig-multi-rig option. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested that there was confusion in ministerial ranks on the issue, but when I talk to the fishermen, certainly in the Clyde, I find a certain degree of confusion among them. There is a 50:50 split on whether to go for single-rig or multi-rig. I believe that dual rigs have certain advantages. Bearing in mind environmental issues and quotas, dual rigs would cut down fishing time at sea to obtain similar volume catches. I believe that there


are savings to be found in using diesel. The dual rig system would bring important financial savings to fishermen. I wonder about the wisdom of the single-rig philosophy.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) might well consider a change of date for the imposition of single-rig. I am sure that all hon. Members would welcome that today.
I am also concerned at the unilateral nature of the Bill and about the fact that United Kingdom fishermen will be obliged to comply but others will not. Once again, I am encouraged by the words of my hon. Friend the Minister, who said that discussions were under way with the southern Irish about the management of stocks in the Irish sea and on the west coast. I am sure that that will be welcome.
I do not turn my back on the £25 million in cash which will be available for decommissioning—I welcome it. Scottish Members have been asking for just such a programme for years, and it would seem churlish to criticise today. However, having said that I welcome decommissioning, it has another side. There is a feeling in the fishing industry on the west coast that some support for family boats could have been sustained. I recognise the impracticalities of that. Probably I am impractical in believing that some advantage could be gained by decommissioning boats on the east coast and allowing transfer with subsequent west coast stand down.
I suggest that decommissioning and conservation measures can never be popular, especially in the fishing industry, but the long-term interests of the industry are at stake, and I support the Government's intentions in the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on a forceful and vigorous speech, which was all the more effective for its strong defence of local interests. Fishing does not have enough advocates and defenders in the House. It needs the vigour with which he effectively defended the industry today. It is always possible for hon. Members to pursue the defence of those interests in the Lobby after the debate, and I am sure that the Government Whips will extend some indulgence to a new Member who is vigorously defending the interests of his fishermen.
The hon. Member for Ayr made a powerful contribution to the debate, and we concur with his praise for his predecessor, who was a nephew of one of my predecessors, Kenneth Younger, who made an important contribution to the House. I also welcome the hon. Member's praise of Robbie Burns, not because I have much knowledge of his poetry—my knowledge is limited to third degree Burns—but because he was a socialist and preached socialism in much of his poetry. It is good to know that the hon. Member is an enthusiast of Burns.
We all enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Ayr, unlike the Bill that we are debating, which is not merely retrograde but disastrous. If we pass it, we shall give Ministers a blank cheque—an authorisation slowly to strangle the fishing industry, which is important to us all.
I am sorry that the Minister of State is associated with the Bill. I congratulate him, in his absence, on his promotion. He has been an effective Minister with

responsibility for fishing, whose interest in the industry we have all welcomed. He has been one of the best Ministers for fishing and has certainly taken a closer interest in the industry than many of his predecessors. It is a shame that he is marring that record with the Bill, because it puts him completely at variance with the industry, which was not consulted about the measure. It is no good saying that the industry will be consulted now. Retrospective consultation, while we are debating the measure, is no more than a request for a blank cheque.
The fishing industry is extremely angry and has united against the measure in a way which we have never known before. In long years of dealing with the industry it has always been disunited, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, and it has had a series of discordant voices urging different things, but it is totally united in opposition to the measure.
The Bill is disastrous because it goes down the wrong path. It pursues the dead-end street of control, regulation and bureaucratisation. The Minister might call it socialism, but I would call it the Delorisation of the fishing industry. It is the opposite of socialism, which sets people free. It is bureaucracy, control and restriction of the industry, based on the simple-minded equation that the way to cut catches is to remedy the Government's failure to cut the fleet through a proper decommissioning scheme, which should have been introduced several years ago. That is why we have to deal with this Bill—it is ministerial failure. The Government are trying to cut catches by cutting the amount of time that vessels can spend at sea, and that is a daft way to go about it.
The Bill will not be effective and it will put the British industry—including the Grimsby industry, with which I am concerned—at a serious disadvantage compared with that of our European competitors. We are asking the industry to compete with a ball and chain around its leg. While it is shackled because of the number of days that vessels can spend at sea, our European competitors will be competing for the same catches on the same grounds. However, their catches are not as closely monitored and controlled. Judging by evidence of arrests and prosecutions in Grimsby, many of our competitors do not keep proper log books and a proper account of their catches. They are not controlled, but our vessels' days at sea will be limited. The Bill will help our competitors, and fishing is a competitive industry.
The Bill will not affect stocks because our competitors will catch the stocks that our vessels are not catching. It will be particularly helpful to those flagships—the quota hoppers which are now registered as British—which fish from European ports but catch the British quota. How will their performance, in terms of days at sea, be controlled by the measure? When the Under-Secretary sums up, I hope that he will tell us how the quota hoppers will be policed and how their days at sea will be monitored.
Dutch quota hoppers have caught substantial amounts of plaice, and as a result the catches of Grimsby vessels, which catch plaice in season and in due proportion, have had to be limited because of over-catching by beamers. Quota hoppers will have to be limited, but as they land their catches overseas and are hardly accountable in this country, I do not understand how they can be effectively controlled.
The Bill merely shackles the fishing industry and interferes with its economics. It will be totally disruptive. If, as we are told, the aim is a 30 per cent. cut in effort, how will it affect the economics for each fisherman and fishing


company, especially the larger, commercially-competitive companies on which we depend for catches in distant waters? The Bill will be as disruptive for them as for the smaller Grimsby vessels, which are barely profitable. Their catches are down and their receipts in the market have not proportionately increased. The smaller fishermen are staggering along. They are keeping going, but they will be held back when the limit on days at sea is introduced.
If one translates the 30 per cent. cut into the economics of income per vessel, the economics of a company and the viability of the industry, the effect will be disastrous. The result will he restructuring by bankruptcy and by liquidation. In compensation for the Government's failure to produce a proper decommissioning system and a managed restructuring of the industry, haphazard bankruptcies will be enforced because of the limits imposed by the Bill.
There has been no study of the Bill's effect on the economics and viability of the industry. Why not? Why cannot Ministers tell us how the Bill will affect vessels and the industry? Because they have not studied it. It is a leap in the dark, and the Minister is asking us to sanction it because he has wanted for so long to save money on decommissioning.
The Bill will have dangerous results. Vessels will put to sea in worse condition. Worst of all, it will not help conservation. When vessels are allowed to go to sea they will go fiat out to catch the maximum numbers, and it will not matter what species they catch. They will not target fish or go to specific areas to get them. They will go where they can to catch sufficient numbers, whether they be small or large fish. Vessels will have to make the maximum catch in the shortest possible time to use their gear to the maximum. By using larger crews or more intensive gear, it is possible to increase the catch. Nets could be in the water more destructively, and for longer, despite the days-at-sea limitation.
The Bill is not an effective conservation measure but will penalise conservation-conscious ports such as Grimsby whose fishermen have always used a bigger mesh net. Grimsby vessels use up to a 125 mm mesh because they practise selective catching—they want the largest, best, and most marketable fish. In future, they will be forced to catch as much fish as possible in the time that they have at sea, just to fill up.
Worst of all, the Bill will stop the search for other, more effective conservation-conscious solutions. Quotas are in themselves a bad way of controlling catches. They lead to discards and to political manipulation. In the past, we insisted on quotas, and now we seek a limit on the number of days at sea. We have not considered technical measures that could be far more effective in achieving proper conservation.
The fishing effort is more directly related to the type of gear, the way that it is used, and the size of the mesh, than it is to the number, horsepower, or tonnage of the vessels involved. The Bill is a national measure, so it should justify the search for national conservation measures. Why not consider even bigger mesh sizes?
Why not insist on the square panel? Why has square mesh research been left so late, and why has so much of it been left to the industry? Why not go ahead with square mesh panels, which John Ashworth's research indicates are an effective way of improving conservation, by allowing smaller fish to escape? Why not ban any gear that stops the escape of small fish?
Clearly, industrial fishing must be phased out. Fishing for human consumption must take priority. Why not ban industrial fishing altogether rather than seek conservation by a measure such as the Bill, with its disastrous effects on the British industry? Why not restrict beam trawling, with its destructive effects on the sea bed? Other measures could include the closure of specific grounds, and the observance of specific trawling bans in spawning seasons.
The industry is anxious to consult and is desperate to be heard. It has proposed solutions and conservation measures, and has itself financed a good deal of the research that should have been undertaken by the Government. Why has all that been left to the industry? Why has it not been consulted about effective conservation measures? Instead, it has had imposed on it blanket legislation. Why is the industry being asked to make the sacrifices that it is, and to risk bankruptcies and liquidations, because the Minister has not been successful in getting money for a decommissioning scheme from the Treasury all these years?
I speak almost obsessively of the Bill's effect on Grimsby, because during my time as its Member of Parliament I have witnessed the decimation of its fishing industry by the loss of distant waters opportunities. That of Iceland occurred before I was elected, but the consequences are still being felt. I watched the industry fight back, and reconstruct and reorganise itself as a nearer-water, small-vessel industry. Its prospect grew better until the late 1980s, when it faced a slow run-down, a reduction in catches, and a return that has not been enough to keep the vessels viable. The industry is now threatened.
We need a fishing industry concentrated in places such as Grimsby, which serve as centres of fishing excellence offering the right training and facilities. They support the market and offer a concentration of fishing that is now threatened. The industry needs the support of local communities to recruit fishermen.
The consequences of the Bill will fall particularly on share fishermen—on the badly paid crews who make a return for part of the year, but who often arrive home in debt. I receive letters from fishermen's wives asking, "Why is it that my husband can be sent to sea and come back owing the company large sums of money?" When a vessel has made little money, the crews earn hardly anything from the option of share fishing. Their catches will be cut by the Bill, and that will be disastrous for Grimsby.
The Bill will benefit quota hoppers, Dutch beamers, and Spanish vessels. They have the commercial power and the financial strength to buy up licences as British fishing vessels are driven into liquidation. It is appalling that Ministers are not examining ways of controlling quota hoppers through the tax regime and by regulating landings in this country. It is particularly appalling at a time when the Government are imposing the death by a thousand cuts that the Bill represents.
As Members of Parliament who represent ports and a fishing industry that is under-represented in the politics of this country, it is our responsibility to protect, nurture, defend, and sustain those ports through this difficult period so that they can be kept going as part of a viable, competitive industry, to inherit better catches in the better times that must lie ahead if we can get the conservation aspect straight. The Bill will not get it straight. It is a garotte that will be drawn tighter and tighter year by year. Ministers will find new ways of making surreptitious cuts


by tightening that garotte around the neck of the fishing industry to the point of total strangulation. It is not our job to give Ministers a blanket authorisation to garotte the fishing industry that we are here to defend.

Mr. Keith Mans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on his excellent maiden speech. I was particularly interested in his remarks about the aircraft industry, of which I have some knowledge. He is right to say that the two aircraft that are built at Prestwick have a huge future ahead of them—particularly in the American export market. I am certain that many jobs will be created by the success of the Jetstream 41 in particular. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) on her very good maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from both of them in the coming weeks and months.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have aired their views and worries about the Bill. Before I do so, I wish to make a couple of general points. Whenever we debate the fishing industry, we run up against the fact that it is in many ways hopelessly over-regulated, and whenever we attempt to even the balance, we end up producing even more measures which make it even harder for many fishermen to earn a living.
We are now up against the problem of making things fair for fishermen in this country. We have no means of controlling the way in which foreign fishermen, or fishermen in other European Community countries, fish our own quota. I thought that the Minister's use of the word "subsidiarity" in this case was slightly misplaced. I am a great believer in the operation of the principle of subsidiarity throughout the European Community, but I think that the fishing industry is an exception. I would much prefer to see more uniformity in that industry across the Community so that we do not allow for the genuinely justified suspicion that, while we abide by the rules on quotas and the various methods of protecting our stocks, other nations have a slightly different view of how the regulations should be interpreted and applied. Across the board in the Community, from fishery protection duties to the number of people onshore checking the quotas and the amount of the catch that passes through a port, one sees considerable variations in the way in which regulations are applied. It will be difficult to ensure the uniform application of the days-at-sea proposal. If such uniform application is not obtained, it is likely that our fishermen will raise grievances because they will be forced to apply the rules others do not.
In my port of Fleetwood, we have, from the start, always been keen on measures to conserve stocks and in that respect we have a good record. The fact remains that the long-term viability of our industry depends on increased stability and consistency in the future. It is difficult enough to make a living out of fishing these days, but it has become much harder when the rules and the goalposts are changing almost by the month. If that happens, it is difficult to encourage new blood into the industry and ensure that the people who have invested in it already have the opportunity to obtain a fair return on that investment.
In that respect, I was pleased to note that the Government have finally come round to the view that we should have a decommissioning scheme. I know many people say that the scheme is too small and too late, and in some ways that view is justified. It is absolutely right that if the scheme had been introduced earlier we would not now be faced with other measures to reduce effort and preserve stocks. Nevertheless, I welcome the scheme and sincerely hope that it will be an effective method of reducing the size of the fleet while—at the same time—making it possible for the remaining vessels and fishermen to become more viable and thus able to take advantage of any new openings which may occur. From that point of view, I am convinced that it is a good idea.
I also urge the Minister to consider the cash limit if, in the future, it is shown that we can reduce effort and bring the amount of fishing more into line with the fish available by pushing a little more cash into the decommissioning scheme. That is a more effective way of producing a long-term and viable fishing industry than some of the other measures that have been mentioned. I hope that the Government will at least leave that door slightly open, bearing in mind the comments made by a number of hon. Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), on the cost to the Treasury of the scheme. We have heard all sorts of figures, but I do not think that they will be quite so large as some of the figures that we have heard from the Government today.
I welcome the introduction of a scheme for licensing vessels of less than 10 m. Clearly, that will get rid of the loophole which for the past few years has allowed some vessels to take easy advantage, whereby a new class of vessels of less than 10 m was introduced to get round the old system of licences for vessels of more than 10 m. Provided that that measure is used sensibly, it should have an effect on the amount of effort and the amount of fish caught in certain fisheries, particularly my own in the Irish sea.
The technical measures on the size of nets are welcome, as are the thoughts on grading machines, which I hope will result in fewer discards than has been the case recently. It is frustrating for fishermen to have to cast back into the sea large numbers of dead fish which simply float on the surface but cannot be fished because they are too small. It has been suggested that the grading machine rules should be revised, which is a good idea.
The most controversial and important part of the Bill is the days-at-sea and tie-up arrangements. My main worry on that method of reducing effort is the arbitrary way in which it is likely to achieve its purpose, if it does so at all. It will be almost impossible for the regulatory system to provide fairness and for that method of reducing effort to work properly. One of the key problems has already been mentioned. Fishermen, when they are allowed to fish, will have the perverse incentive to catch anything that they can, which will counteract some of the other measures designed to preserve stock. More of certain species will be caught than would otherwise be the case, because fishermen will rightly want to make the maximum attempt to fish wherever they can when they are allowed to do so.
The other problem is that in some parts of the country it is possible, because of the larger vessels in some ports, to counter-balance and make allowance for the effects of the tie-up regulations. Many of those ports will not be affected so much as others. I am particularly conscious of that in relation to my port of Fleetwood, which has a relatively


old and small fleet. I am worried that its fishermen will put out to sea in conditions in which they would not normally do so simply in order to make ends meet. The tie-up may have a serious effect on safety and it will operate arbitrarily. I do not think that, ultimately, it will have a huge effect on the amount of fishing effort that takes place.
I acknowledge that the Government have taken the view that the Bill must form part of a much larger package to reduce effort and to preserve stocks, but I have yet to be convinced that it will work in the way the Government suggest. I urge the Minister to consider the way in which the enabling power will apply and to try to ensure that there will be at least a degree of fairness so that there will not be bankruptcy for some fishermen, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), while others remain unaffected. That must be avoided at all costs. If we are to have effective means of preserving stocks, we must have a system which applies the agony evenly across the country and between ports.
I welcome the Government's conversion to the idea of decommissioning, as it is something that many Conservative Members as well as Opposition Members have advocated for some time. The Government are going in the right direction and I also welcome the other aspects of the Bill, such as the technical and licensing measures. However, I have still to be convinced that the measures on tie-up and days at sea will be effective. I hope that we shall have more scientific evidence to prove that they will be effective before they are put into practice.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Those of us who read the Bill and then listened carefully to the Minister's response under cross-examination wondered whether we were discussing the same measure. It would probably be more fruitful for our debate if we could adjourn, read the Minister's response to the questions put to him, and then have a meaningful debate, not on what the Bill says but on the Minister's intentions. The cause and effect of the Bill will be determined not by the content or the written word but by that which does not appear: the regulations and the interpretations that the Minister will place on them. Indeed, in response to my question he gratuitously introduced an important measure. He undertook to set up an appeals procedure which would, I presume, be used to obviate the greatest injustices that will be created by the Bill.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland has no doubt that the Bill will have far-reaching consequences. Some members of the Northern Ireland fisheries producers organisation have told me that it represents the most dramatic change since the Magna Carta. I stood back in amazement and thought that that was a gross exaggeration, but then I thought about it. The right to fish in the Irish sea from the ports of South Down, Kilkeel and Ardglass have existed since long before the Magna Carta and, for the first time in their lives, fishermen will be proscribed by law from obtaining their livelihoods from the sea, as they have done for centuries.
It is sad that the Bill has been introduced without the Government having fulfilled proper consultation with the various regional fish producers organisations, which we would normally expect when such dramatic measures are taken. Much has been made of the fact that the Bill is unilateral and would not apply to other EC countries. I see

the irony of that more than other hon. Members because my constituency of South Down has a water border with the Republic of Ireland. It is five miles from the major fishing port of Kilkeel, so that five miles away boats will put out to sea without that restriction. I did not catch all of the Minister's remarks about his consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic and the subject matters that were covered, but it was clear that they covered that very subject. If they were not, that would be a gross anomaly, with the fishing fleets from Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel putting out to fish with a grave disadvantage compared with those that leave from a port five miles down the coast.
Equally important to me, because of the type of industry that pertains in Northern Ireland, is the fact that the communities there that devote their time to fishing depend almost entirely on fishing and processing the products of the sea for the economic infrastructure of their towns. Severe damage will be done not just to the industry but to the communities that the industry has served so well and so faithfully over many centuries.
All of us subscribe to the need for conservation measures. Indeed, all the fishermen to whom I have spoken subscribe to that need. We are arguing about the most effective and fair way to accomplish those measures. The lack of decommissioning schemes has been one of the major contributing factors to the need to introduce such a draconian scheme. It is based on the fact that the fish producers organisations and many hon. Members including myself have, over the years, repeatedly asked the Government to introduce a meaningful decommissioning scheme in consultation with the industry and those who subscribe, as the fish would, to conservation.
As for the Bill's practicality, one of the most reasonable steps for the Government to have taken before introducing such a strong measure would have been to make a scientiffic assessment of the scheme's effect. It would be scientific in the sense of its effect on conservation, and scientific-economic in the sense of its effect on the industry and the communities that depend on it. It is ludicrous that the Bill should be introduced without that basic information being available to the Government.
The Bill is open-ended in terms of the ministerial power that it bestows. I shall read avidly the Minister's responses under cross-examination when he opened the debate because there is much more in what he promised than there is in the Bill. It would have been logical and proper for the Bill to have contained the most important of the undertakings that have been given verbally tonight. It is probably ironic that, at this moment in another place, the Law Lords are debating the validity of statements by Ministers outside the consideration of Bills. I look forward to hearing their decision.
The Bill's viability must be questioned. Will it achieve what it sets out to achieve? One of the first steps that the Government could have taken was to take out of circulation those parts of the industry that wished to go voluntarily. Having accomplished that, they could then have seen what the shortfall was before deciding how to legislate for it. People who are now being pressed to the wall economically because of the quota systems would be willing—nay, anxious—to get out of the fishing industry had the Government given them an even handshake as they would in any other industry by way of compensation, support or set-aside.


A direct consequence of the Bill is that the most effective fishermen will not necessarily survive. There will be redundancies and fall-out in terms of people employed in the industry and those will not necessarily involve the most effective side of the industry. Those who will survive best will be those who are not totally committed to it. That will have a counter effect on an industry in competition with foreign fishing fleets, and the double jeopardy is that foreign fishing fleets will not be restricted by the Bill.
Some hon. Members have mentioned safety. I have no doubt that, once the Bill is enacted, skippers and crews who depend on the sea for their livelihood will increase the risk that they already take and either stay at sea longer in unsuitable and unsafe conditions, or will put out from port in conditions that they would otherwise not risk, to try to achieve the maximum catch to make themselves a viable economic unit. The fishing industry is like any other—if it is not a viable economic unit, it goes to the wall financially.
Another aspect of the Bill that weighs heavily with most of the fishermen to whom I speak is that of the bureaucracy that will be created. In the notes attached to the Bill there is a small comment about the number of jobs required and the cost of them. If the measure is to be effective, properly policed and adhered to, we should multiply that number by any figure from three to five. If it is not, there will be grave injustice.
The Bill is grossly unfair to the industry as a whole. Any other industry faced with the need to cut its production and act in the interests of others—including conservationists, environmentalists and ourselves—would be entitled to ask for reasonable compensation. Many other industries in this country are presently polluting the environment, and the reason they give for not introducing anti-pollution measures is that they would not be cost effective. If it is not cost effective for Sellafield, for example, to introduce maximum environmental protection mechanisms, the same could he argued for the fishing industry. Indeed, I would go further and say that the maximum cost should be met by the Government.
The Bill is not capable of being properly amended. As the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, the Bill contains many regulations and he has had to give many undertakings to the House to ensure that the Bill is sensible and practical. Therefore, I believe that the honest and proper thing to do would be to tear up the Bill and start again after full consultation with the fishing industry. That will not be done, but I believe that it is the right thing to do.

Mr. John Sykes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in tonight's debate. As the new Member of Parliament representing Scarborough and Whitby, I am following in the footsteps of Sir Michael Shaw, who was our Member of Parliament for 26 years. He is universally popular and has exerted great influence over the constituency. From speaking to many people in Parliament. I know that Sir Michael is held in high esteem, both as an individual and as a parliamentarian. He was a long-standing member of the Chairmen's Panel and a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select

Committee on Selection. When I was a new candidate, Sir Michael was helpful, and I know that I shall be able to call on his advice in years to come.
As well as their craggy, 45-mile coastline, Scarborough and Whitby also boast some of England's most magnificent countryside: the wild, rugged north Yorkshire moors, valleys forged millions of years ago by glaciers, and rolling wolds which are efficiently tended by hard-working farmers, whose forebears have tended the land for 1,500 years. In all, the district is an excellent touring base for holidaymakers.
Scarborough and Whitby have also played an important role in shaping our nation's history. Captain Cook, who discovered New Zealand, had connections with Whitby. I take it as a tribute to the ancient fishing town and its people that the American space shuttle, Endeavour, was named in honour of Captain Cook and his ship, which was built in the boatyards of Whitby all those years ago. As the shuttle travelled the heavens recently, it carried within its space-age hold the rudder from the original ship, Endeavour.
It is said that Whitby was once England's sixth largest port, and that it was also the first town in the country to benefit from street lighting, due to the plentiful supply of whaling oil. Travelling even further back in time, in 665 the synod of Whitby marked a turning point in the development of the Church of England. Its decision to follow Roman usages rather than Celtic usages brought the English church into much closer contact with the continent—perhaps that was an early version of "ever-closer union". That policy backfired when the English jettisoned the idea of ever-closer union during the reign of Henry VIII and the Reformation. That is a good reason for the European Community to hold its next summit in Whitby. Caedmon—pronounced Cadman—who lived in Whitby until he died in 680, is acknowledged by many to be England's first poet.
Whitby is bounded by the sea on one side and the north Yorkshire moors on the other. Most of the region comes under the control of the national park, about whose activities I receive more complaints in my postbag than anything else. The town has retained all its charm and escaped the excesses of 1960s and 1970s architecture. If one sails out of Whitby harbour and looks back, there will be little in one's view of the town that one's 19th century counterpart would not have seen had he or she undertaken a similar voyage.
Travelling further down the coast, passing the beautiful village of Robin Hood's Bay, one arrives in Scarborough. The headland was first used by the Romans as a warning station. I am glad to say that we make our visitors from Glasgow far more welcome these days. The Vikings prevailed in the end and Scarborough became a 10th century fishing village, taking its name from the Nordic chief who settled there, Skarthi. In the 12th century a Norman keep was built near the present castle.
An interesting factor about Scarborough and Whitby, which form one of Yorkshire's most beautiful constituencies, is that a slice of it is owned by the Duke of Lancaster. That was because Henry III's son Edmund received from his father the honour of Pickering and the manor of Scalby in 1267, at much the same time as he was granted the earldom of Lancaster, the land of which now comprises the Duchy. Therefore, I hasten to assure my hon. Friends


from Lancashire that what I have told them is merely the result of historical continuity, not some great Lancastrian feat of arms during the Wars of the Roses.
Richard III, Lord of Scarborough, visited us in 1484 to review his fleet and subsequently granted us our town charter, the motto of which is "Loyalty Binds Me" —a fact that the Whips have already brought to my attention. Northstead manor in Peasholm was held by Richard III. As with the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, a Member of Parliament who wishes to resign may apply for the stewardship of the Manor of Northstead—another fact that has been brought to my attention by the Whips.
In 1626 the spa was developed, so we can claim to be England's first resort. The town has many fine buildings due to Edward VII's patronage. It is a town with a proud royal heritage.
Another heritage of which we in Scarborough and Whitby are justly proud is that of the fishing industry—a heritage that spans 1,000 years. I call the fishermen in my constituency my floating voters, but not in the democratic sense. I have had experience of the fishing industry and of what the fishermen go through so that we may enjoy fish on our tables. I went to sea with Bob Walker, the skipper of the Jan Denise, on a rough night. It was a distinctly queasy experience.
The fishermen of Scarborough and Whitby are also feeling uneasy about the exact operation of the days-at-sea regulations that the Bill will allow the Minister to impose on them. I urge the Minister to take account of the fact that, if the days-at-sea regulations are to he based on 1991 figures, many fishermen in my constituency will he doubly disadvantaged as they were already under the days-at-sea restrictions in that year. Therefore, they could be facing restrictions on restrictions. Will the Minister consider the case of a fisherman in Scarborough who was said to have taken his boat out in order to assist a colleague whose boat was in trouble, only to find on his return that his mercy mission would be counted by officials as one of his days at sea?
It must also be remembered that, for safety reasons, smaller boats of less than 10 m are unable to set out in the adverse weather conditions that the larger vessels may risk. Will the Minister bear that in mind if he sets restrictions for smaller boats? All of us in Scarborough accept the need for conservation measures. but we also feel that we should press for measures to curb industrial fishing. Some of the factory ships trawl with nets which have mouths large enough to accommodate 12 jumbo jets merely to obtain fishmeal to produce animal feed. I hope that the EC—if there is to be one after last week—can get to grips with this conservation problem. In the meantime, we are proud of our fishermen in Scarborough and Whitby. They are extremely hard-working, and they deserve to be able to plan for a better and more certain future.
I have spoken of the living heritage derived from the fishermen and the livelihood. Let me also say something about the economic and cultural aspects of life in the area, and about the correlation between the two sectors. Although 25 per cent. of the population are enjoying their retirement in my constituency, it is also a place of opportunity for the young and for families. We have a thriving and innovative business community: technology and goods are exported from our towns to all four corners of the earth.
Pindar Graphics. based in Scarborough. prints many of the women's magazines that are currently available—and

the Yellow Pages! McCains sells its oven chips, and other products, all over the world, using locally grown stock. Plaxtons leads Europe in the technology and innovation involved in coach building. I could mention many other companies.
We all hope for an early start to the A64 road improvement scheme, which will ease the flow of goods out and the flow of visitors in. I mention visitors because tourism is a vital part of our life. My constituency is a great holiday and conference centre. It enjoys some of the cleanest beaches in Europe, and it also has a longer summer season than any other holiday town. The Black and White Minstrels first performed in Scarborough, and Benny Hill was a regular visitor in his early days—before his blue period.
The north Yorkshire moors steam railway attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, and the television series "Heartbeat" is filmed in the nearby village of Goathland. Bram Stoker's chilling tale of Dracula was set in Whitby, and even as we speak the famous and ancient Scarborough Fayre is taking place. I look forward to a return visit to Scarborough by the Prime Minister; perhaps he will attend our excellent Scarborough cricket festival, a major event in the cricketing calendar, and while he is there he may possibly visit the Stephen Joseph theatre in the round. Alan Ayckbourn premieres all his plays there, and it is where that great playwright does so much to encourage new talent and to bring the arts to ordinary people.
In the short time available, I have tried to convey an impression of the quality of life in my constituency—of the beauty, excitement and tradition that exist there. I hope that many right hon. and hon. Members will take the opportunity to visit us, and to see the constituency for themselves. They will be most welcome; but, just as important, they will discover the unique sense of identity of which all of us in Yorkshire are justly proud.
That is why I hope that, one day soon, our Government will abolish Cleveland and Humberside, so that my county and its ridings can be restored and Yorkshire can again stretch from the Humber to the Tees, as it once did for a thousand years.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) on a fluent, entertaining and informative speech about his constituency, which also contained a sting in the tail for the Government in regard to the Bill. I have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he comes from a manufacturing family background. I am sure that that will enable him to make a valuable contribution to future debates.
Before I deal with the Bill, let me raise a specific issue that threatens to dig a large hole in it. I refer to fisheries conservation. Last week, a judgment was made in Stornoway sheriff court that seemed to suggest that the Fishery Limits Act 1976 did not provide the protection that it had been thought to provide—protection, that is, against foreign vessels entering United Kingdom waters. It was decided that, when such vessels entered our territorial waters with the intention of fishing, they were not breaching the legislation.
Apparently, that loophole was exposed as long ago as 1983, and it comes as something of a shock to find that the


Government have taken no action to close it. A Spanish vessel registered in Panama, for instance, can fish our waters without hindrance. I hope that the Scottish Office Minister who winds up the debate will explain why nothing was done about that earlier, and that he will tell us what the Government now intend to do.
No one has yet mentioned the increasing pressure that is being placed on lobster and crab stocks in United Kingdom waters. A working party was set up recently by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, including not only representatives of the industry but Government scientists. It produced an excellent report, which mentioned the increasing pressure to which I have referred. I particularly admired the report's approach to the need to tackle and reduce that pressure: it recommended a combination of national guidelines and regional implementation, by means of regional fishery committees.
The report pointed out that such arrangements did not yet exist in Scotland. I believe that such a system—national guidelines, along with the exercise of effort limitation on a regional basis—is appropriate, not just for the crab and lobster fishery but for United Kingdom fisheries in general. I hope that the Government will adopt the report's recommendations about the shell fishery, and that those that are seen to work well are subsequently extended to other areas. I also hope that the Minister will discuss the recommendations when he winds up, and will tell us when the Government hope to respond to them. In fishery debates, I have constantly stressed the need for a policy that is sensitive to the regional differences around the United Kingdom coastline—around the Scottish coastline, indeed—and I am delighted that the working party has taken up the issue.
It is important to distinguish not only between regional features of the United Kingdom, but between different kinds of fleet and different kinds of fishing. There is, for instance, an important distinction to be drawn between inshore and offshore fleets. I do not consider it fair to impose uniform effort limitation regulations across the industry; a distinction must be made between those two fleets. I wish to illustrate the difference by referring to two aspects of the Bill and the regulations that the Government have recently produced: the one-net rule, and the days-at-sea restriction.
A number of objections have been made to the one-net rule across the board, but it is clearly much more damaging to the smaller inshore fleet than it is to other parts of the United Kingdom fleet. The fishermen in my constituency are seriously concerned about the effect of the one-net rule, unless there is an adjustment to the by-catch restrictions. Without such an adjustment, the Western Isles fishery will be destroyed.
If I may explain why they have that fear—which is genuine, not exaggerated—the Western Isles prawn fishery depends upon a certain amount of white fish by-catch. Fishermen in the Western Isles fish for prawns during the day and switch to fishing for white fish during the hours of darkness. That policy can be pursued fairly well during the summer months, but I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that during the winter months the hours of daylight in the Western Isles are very short. Therefore,

fishing for white fish becomes all-important for the local fleet during the winter months, between October and March.
At the moment, local fishermen enjoy the privilege of having valuable prawn grounds in close proximity to good white fish grounds. They are between four and eight miles apart. As the hours of darkness begin, the fleet can easily switch from one fishery to the other. If, however, the one-net rule is introduced without any flexibility, the boats will be required to steam all the way back to harbour where their nets will have to be changed before they can return and fish for white fish. The steaming time is between six and eight hours. It would be impossible for boats of under 400 hp to do that. Local inshore fleet boats are usually under 400 hp. A serious threat, therefore, faces the Western Isles fishing fleet.
It is important to distinguish between inshore and offshore fleets. Apart from the effect that this rule would have on the inshore fleet, one has to remember that inshore fleets have hardly any impact upon the overfishing of white fish. For example, the Western Isles fleet accounts for less than 1 per cent. of the total allowable catch of white fish off the west coast. The whole of that catch is taken during the winter months. The fleet is then absolutely dependent upon its white fish catch for survival. In no way can the Western Isles fleet be considered to be causing a problem in the white fish category, yet its dependence upon that category in the winter months is critical. To remove the fleet's capacity to go after white fish might destroy the fleet. Local fishermen have expressed their serious concern about that to me. I do not believe that their concern is exaggerated.
There are ways to get round the problem. One way would be to grant a by-catch restriction exemption for smaller boats. Boats of under 400 hp could be exempted from the by-catch restriction. Alternatively, separated trawls could be made exempt from the by-catch restriction. I am told that the use of separated trawls has led to exemption from the European Community by-catch restriction in the Bay of Biscay, so that could be done without changing the EC by-catch rules.
An argument can also be made for trying to use the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council to change some of the by-catch rules, in particular the by-catch rule that affects non-protected species such as dogfish and skate. It makes no sense to include those categories within the by-catch restriction.
I understand that other hon. Members want to speak, so I intend to confine my final remarks to the days-at-sea restriction. Uniform imposition of the days-at-sea restriction across the whole of the fishery makes no sense when one takes into account the differences between the offshore and inshore sectors. In particular, simply to freeze everything at 1991 levels is unfair to those fleets that are not seven day a week, 24 hour a day, double crew fleets but that already pursue a much more moderate, conservationist style of fishing. Account ought to be taken of that fact.
To return to a suggestion that I have made frequently in the House, the Government ought to implement the weekend ban on prawn fishing on the west coast. The prawn fishermen are themselves calling for such a ban. It would cost the Government nothing, it would be easy to enforce, and it would reduce fishing time by 30 per cent. —much more than the days-at-sea restriction called for by the Government.


Although there are many other points that I wish to raise, I am sure that I shall have the opportunity to do so in Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help hon. Members if I announce that the wind-up speeches will start at 9.20. Short speeches will therefore ensure that more hon. Members can make a contribution.

Mr. David Porter: I appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have urged hon. Members to make short speeches. I am grateful to have this opportunity before the end of the debate to make the only speech on behalf of an entire region—East Anglia.
Three of my hon. Friends have made excellent maiden speeches. The presence of new Members of Parliament in the first fisheries debate of this new Parliament is very welcome. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, the same Members of Parliament tend to discuss all offshore matters—coastal protection, health and safety, sea pollution and anything to do with the oceans—including, even, Maxwell's helicopters. Quite often, we find agreement across the Chamber. Occasionally, we find that whoever is sitting on the Treasury Bench agrees with us. I fear, however, that tonight there will be no such agreement.
Following last week's excitements when the supertanker of the European state took a hole very near the water line, it is tempting, feeling as I do against any deepening of Europe beyond a free-trading entity, to rock the boat a little more tonight and get some more water through that hole. Assuredly enough, the Bill is a very small link in the European chain that anchors a once proud and mighty British industry to that insensitive tanker.
As Fishing News of 29 May said:
To limit the days a fisherman is allowed to spend at sea is to restrict his ability to make a return on the capital he has invested … Where is the compensation in all this for those who can't live on their ration of days at sea?
That is just one of several questions to which we have had no answers tonight.
To turn to the question of why the Bill is being rushed into Parliament. I am surprised that nobody has yet pointed out that tomorrow there is to be a Council of Ministers meeting. The Government want the Bill to be given a Second Reading tonight so as to strengthen Ministers' hands at that meeting. I do not accept that. Why is it that these far-reaching, deep-seated and drastic steps and changes to our way of life have to be accepted instantly and when the Government tell us it is good for us? We are told that, somehow, we shall miss a cruise on this great Eurotanker and that if we do not jump for it right now we shall miss the boat. The Government do not allow for the fact that it is not now and for ever. We may get another that we like better later on, or we may not even get on board this particular cruise at all.
In the last Parliament I spoke a number of times on fisheries matters, each time in a way that was critical of policy or, as the jargon of my Whip has it, in a way "unhelpful to the Government". I recognise that the Government have an impossible job in getting fisheries policy right. It cannot be done. Reading this Bill and the industry's reaction to it means that those who thought that the Government would conclude that less regulation might

work where more has failed are going to be disappointed. Much stress has been placed on the message that the Bill is part of a package. It is free standing, but it must be seen in the context of a raft of measures designed, we are told, to conserve fish and to keep the industry viable. The raft gets heavier each year as new rules, regulations and restrictions are piled on it. Why is that? Because the common fisheries policy has failed and cannot deliver conservation or viability in anything but an ideal world.
The reality of the sea fish industry—whether it be catching, selling, coping with more regulation than the British nuclear industry or competing with the EC—is that the difficulties are hard enough, so why on earth pile on more regulations?
That leads to the question that we as a nation need to address. Do we want a British fishing industry? Pause while we all mentally answer yes, but I should like that reassurance from the Minister.
Only Ministers want the Bill. No Member with a fishing interest in his or her constituency has praised the Bill. None of our constituents seem to want it or think that it will work. I do not want to do Ministers, or their advisers, an injustice, but none of them—certainly neither the Minister nor I—has tried to earn a living on a boat for which we have mortgaged our houses and family lifestyles for 365 days a year, when we cannot work as many days as we need to, when we see other Europeans fishing the same waters laughing at us because they do not have the same restrictions and when we are bobbing about in the North sea risking life and limb puking over the side. How can I tell them that this medicine is what they must take when they tell me, because they know, that they do not want it? Do I know better than them? Does my hon. Friend the Minister and his advisers know better? I plead with my hon. Friend to address that point today.
All hon. Members regard parts of their constituencies as a touchstone, a yardstick. After the hothouse atmosphere of this place, anywhere in Waveney acts as such for me, but in particular the Lowestoft fishing market does. If an idea is sellable, it will sell there. If it is not, fishermen will not touch it. It was there that I recognised that the community charge must go. I went to the wall on that because I believed in it, against advice from outside, but despite what I thought personally I could not say that I knew best and that it must continue. The same applies to this Bill.
The big question that we must answer before 10 pm is how do we tell a struggling industry that we shall hold its head under water for a while and that if it drowns, never mind, the Dutch, French and Spanish will put fish on British tables?
The industry is fragmented and divided, not just country to country or port to port but section to section within a port. I understand the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Minister for a package that this year, like last year, appears in theory to be the great white hope. He must be exasperated by the industry and perhaps by me and other hon. Members who clamoured for a decommissioning scheme and who, when offered one, are still not happy. I wish that we were. The irony is that, three years ago, such a scheme might have done the job and might have reduced the fleet size and the effort. As other hon. Members have said, £25 million now does not touch it. It will make it possible for more efficient boats and more countries to catch more fish and to increase their effort.


The decommissioning scheme is still not for the whole industry. It still will not reach all the fishermen who will be put out of work and it will still leave the British taxpayer paying more into our competitors' schemes than our fishermen could get out.
Although this part of the decommissioning package may not be a great hit, it may allow my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tell the House in future that it has not worked and that he was against decommissioning all along, which, of course, he was. He will also say, as has been said, "The Bill is just an enabling measure", but once it is on the statute book it can and will be invoked.
The issue of consultation has been raised again and again tonight. Only today, I received a copy of a response to the consultation from the Lowestoft Fishing Vessel Owners Association, dated 4 June. That has not been digested. Was any consultation digested before the introduction of the Bill? The Minister cannot consult every fish merchant, lumper, seaman, skipper, boat owner or harbour master in the country on every issue, but he can open the quota-setting processes as widely as possible within the United Kingdom. Such people have the voices of experience. Why does not the Minister listen and consider those voices with the siren voices that sometimes come from Whitehall as he is navigating the policy ship?
The review of the CFP is an opportunity for Ministers properly to take stock. If they take the line that if we did not have a common fisheries policy we would have to invent it, fair enough, but let them look afresh at every idea, old and new. As the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) hinted, every part of the United Kingdom is different. What may be right for Scotland may not be right for East Anglia. Although proper compensation schemes for redundancy and scrapping will apply universally, they will have different implications and different impacts on local communities. Let the Minister remember that as he tinkers with the common fisheries policy.
What has upset the industry is the draconian nature of the Bill, and if the Minister reduces the fleet by bankruptcy he will go down in history as the most successful British fishing Minister.
The other part of the package is total allowable catches and quotas, the so-called bedrock of the CFP. We now hear that scientific evidence will not determine TACs in the future. As hon. Members will know, as well as representing fishermen and merchants I have the MAFF fisheries department at Lowestoft in my constituency. I know how important scientific evidence is and how much weight successive Ministers attach to it. Politicians and officials will take other factors into account. Hopefully, that will mean the survival of the British industry. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has long argued for more emphasis on technical conservation measures, but it recognises, as we all must, the interconnection of species so that the development of multi-annual TACs will help longer-term planning, which the industry has not had for a long time. Without relative stability we might as well turn every port into a museum and go home tomorrow. I hope that the Government will stick by their resolve on that.
The NFFO and others support the continuing preference for fishermen within the 12-mile zone. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that in opening, and I congratulate him on doing so. I imagine that Ministers will have that in mind as they join in the mid-term review of the CFP in Europe. Determination to hold the line around the table with 11 other Governments is absolutely right, but to show that the Government are prepared to sacrifice even part of an industry is not the right way forward.
I finish, as I have in other fisheries debates, with some questions. I hope to hear some answers, if not now at least before the Committee finishes. In addition to my heart-felt plea for some real justification for the Bill that I can explain to my constituents who face the dole, is not the days-at-sea restriction totally alien to the British natural conservation policy? What is happening to other EC fleets? Do such restrictions apply to them? If so, why do we not have a list of them? Does my hon. Friend recognise the sense of injustice that prevails not only about the unfair enforcement policy but about our competitors having the edge over us all the time? What research has been conducted? Which ports and which boats will be affected? What is the impact on regional economies, particularly on East Anglia? What is the impact on the fishing effort, which, after all, is what we are supposed to be considering? I sit down in the hope that we can get some answers, but I bear in mind that we may not and that we must face the fact that part of the fishing industry is doomed.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I congratulate hon. Members who have made maiden speeches.
I refer the House to clause 5, a simple clause which states:
This Act extends to Northern Ireland.
As the fisheries spokesman for the fourth largest party in Parliament, I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In 1972, a Conservative Government abolished devolution in Northern Ireland and instigated, as a temporary measure, a system of direct rule whereby legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced by Orders in Council. Right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland would not have the right to amend Northern Ireland legislation. That temporary measure is becoming more like taxation, which was also introduced as a temporary measure.
The Bill is a simple example of how that offensive system of maladministration of Northern Ireland can be changed. One line in the Bill makes it clear that the Act extends to Northern Ireland and that, on this rare occasion, we are debating a United Kingdom measure. On behalf of my colleagues in Northern Ireland, I express our appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other members of his ministerial team for introducing a United Kingdom Bill. It is significant that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is among its supporters.
As I listened to the Minister's introductory speech, I was afraid that we were going through a nightmare and that we were again going to run into great bureaucratic problems in the fishing industry. The measure will curtail fishing, not long after the European Economic Community—as it was then called—was giving grants for more and more fishing boats. The same happened in the milk industry—the Community gave grants for more and


more cows and more and more dairies but, all of a sudden, quotas were introduced to reverse what the EEC had been doing, and we are now in the same situation in the fishing industry.
As other hon. Members have said, fishermen themselves accept the fact that there must be conservation of the fishing grounds. We in Northern Ireland appreciate the decision taken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ban the twin rate. It is especially welcomed by the nephrop fishermen in South Down, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, and in my constituency of Strangford. However, we cannot understand why there should be an exclusion clause for the Fladen Ground in the North sea. At some stage, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain more precisely why that particular ground was excluded.
The Minister said that the Bill will merely empower Ministers and that it is an enabling Bill. That is all right as far as it goes, but we must be told what role right hon. and hon. Members will have in discussing the details which follow the Bill. Unless we receive an assurance in that regard, I would hesitate to support the Bill.
The Minister said that we were in a period of consultation, and we must place on record our congratulations to him on the consultation paper that he sent to various organisations in the fishing industry. The very full consultative document contains 14 pages and should receive a positive response from all involved in the industry. However, I notice that on the back page, among the 26 organisations which were consulted in England, Scotland and Wales and even the Isle of Man, no reference is made to consultation with the industry in Northern Ireland. I do not know why consultation was omitted there when the Bill states that it applies to Northern Ireland.
I deal now with the licensing of vessels of under 10 ft. I accept the Minister's suggestion that it was a necessary measure. If we curtail vessels of more than 10 ft, it is clear that we shall undermine what is trying to be achieved if we give total freedom to those under 10 ft. [HON. MEMBERS: "Metres."] Vessels of under 10 metres—I was brought up with imperial measures. I heard someone referring to Mr. Deputy Speaker as Madam Deputy Speaker some time ago, so we all make mistakes.
Clause 3 increases fines to a maximum of £50,000. That is a very harsh fine, but it has not been mentioned so far. Will the Minister tell us what the present fine is? What is the increase if there is to be one?
We must also deal with effort control, the limiting of the days at sea, and the compulsory tie-up in port. Many hon. Members said that there would be arguments about the 1991 base. We have been told that a committee or panel will consider various applications. 1991 was a bad period for the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. Those interested in the fishing industry there will remember that for the first three months of 1991 there was a prolonged period of very bad weather when the fleet was tied in. That is why taking a particular year as a base is a very dangerous way to proceed when deciding how the limit on days should be applied.
The Minister was good enough to mention the problem of Sundays, and it is a major problem in Northern Ireland. The Sabbath is generally observed there and in the fishing village of Portavogie which has almost 100 boats of 10 metres, not one boat goes out on the Sabbath—they go out one minute after midnight. That applies not only in

Portavogie but elsewhere in Northern Ireland and, I suspect, in Scotland—perhaps there is also some religion left in England where it might apply.
When considering which days to curtail the fleet, may I ask the Minister to ensure that if it is to be one day in the week, it should be Sunday. If it is not Sunday, it will discriminate against all the fishermen in my constituency. If it is to be two days in the week, one of the days should also be Sunday. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) that there should be a curtailment of weekend fishing which would satisfy us in Northern Ireland and the people in the western part of Scotland.
The restrictions on the British fishing fleet are a worry if they are not to apply to foreign fishing boats in our own waters. Some examples have already been mentioned but, as the hon. Member for South Down said, our main concern in Northern Ireland would be the southern Irish boats. Unless the same measures apply to them in our area, there would be a great problem because the Northern Ireland fishing fleet would be tied up but southern Irish boats could come into our waters. Clearly, that would create a problem in Ireland, where we perhaps have enough problems already without creating another.
We experienced another example of the complication caused by different legislation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland only a few week ago when a boat from my constituency was seized by the southern Irish fishing authorities outside Kingstown because it had no ladder to enable the fisheries inspector to board the boat to inspect it. That is not a requirement in the United Kingdom, but it is the law of the Republic of Ireland. When British boats, whether from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, go into southern Irish waters, they will be brought before the courts as that skipper was and charged with not having a ladder. That shows that having different fishing laws for each nation causes great confusion and that it is better to have a common fisheries policy in such instances. That is why I follow the line of the hon. Member for St. Ives. (Mr. Harris) that we should have restrictions common to the whole Community, not ones which apply only to British boats and not to foreign boats in British waters.
I want further explanation from the Minister as to why we shall not get compensation for the days on which boats are tied up. Perhaps the Minister does not have the money. If that is the reason, he should say so. If there are other reasons, he should explain them more fully.
The fishing industry says that not enough finance is being made available to make the decommissioning scheme effective. There has not been a proper response to that allegation by the fishing lobby. I should like the Minister to tell us what impact he thinks that his present decommissioning proposals will have on the future size of the British fishing fleet. Let us hear him spell out the results that he expects from the present decommissioning proposals.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the date of implementation of the decommissioning scheme. The Minister says that it will apply to ownership of boats prior to 1 January 1992. Boats have changed hands since 1 January 1992, and as his statement announcing the new policy was made on 27 February 1992 the scheme should extend to cover ownership of boats up to the date of the statement.
Clearly, there are many criticisms of the Bill. I shall vote against the Scottish National party's reasoned amendment, but the general thrust of the Bill raises many problems which require more effective replies. In Committee, the Ulster Unionist party will oppose some of the clauses.

9 pm

Mr. George Kynoch: I will try to be brief because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. My constituency fishing interests are mainly the smaller vessels—the 50-footers. My predecessor, the late Alick Buchanan-Smith, was a great champion of the fishing industry. Having visited the ports in the constituency, I can understand why.
The fishing port of Gourdon is a relevant example. Some 10 years ago, there were 18 50-footers in the port; now there are only three, which support six fish-processing companies and fish merchants. That port and its fishermen depend greatly on conservation and they believe vehemently in conservation.
The fishing boats, which go out only for two days rather than for longer periods as the larger fishing boats do, provide a steady stream of fresh fish to the fish processors and consumers in the area. It is vital that the fishing port should survive, and it can do so only through conservation. At present, the fishing boats struggle to catch their quota not because of restricted days, but because of the lack of fish.
It is interesting that no one claims credit for supporting the Bill. I believe that the Bill must go through. It is an enabling measure and a first step to ensuring that we get decommissioning, which all of us in Scotland have sought for so long.
I know that many people complain that the amount of decommissioning is insufficient, but surely if we apply decommissioning at the suggested level and couple it with the restricted days we can ensure that the boats that remain in the fleet do not make up for those which are taken out of it.
It is vital that the details behind the licensed days are worked out carefully. I was pleased to hear the Minister stress flexibility because flexibility is desperately needed, not just on licensed days, but in the definition of days at sea. There have been references to maintenance. In the port of Stonehaven, there is a fisherman who used to give the use of his boat to the local education authority to take school children on educational trips round oil rigs. That counts as a day at sea fishing; such days must be taken out of the definition of a day of fishing and, therefore, not counted.
It is important for everyone that conservation is made to work. It is important that the Bill is passed so that we can get decommissioning and conservation. We can then get a controlled and balanced supply of fish. We must ensure that the Minister looks after the small ports and the smaller boats, and that the licensed days are not applied in such a way that we end up with just the larger boats at the expense of the smaller ports. Whole communities are at stake in the smaller ports, which have a long history and tradition. Whatever assistance is given to those ports in the event of closure, it will not replace an industry which provides an exceedingly valuable service to the nation.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Last July, the Milford Haven middle-distance fleet effectively collapsed. Having pleaded with the Government for almost two years to introduce a decommissioning scheme under which they could rationalise, restructure and reduce the size of the fleet, the fishermen found market forces taking over, and seven trawlers owned by three separate companies had to cease operations.
The effect on the port of Milford Haven was significant. Scores of people who worked both ashore and afloat were made redundant. The people of Milford Haven were staggered by the Government's announcement in February that they had performed a U-turn and were to introduce a decommissioning scheme after all. I hope that the Minister will explain in detail to the people of Milford Haven, who are unemployed as a result of the Government's refusal in 1990 and 1991 to introduce a decommissioning scheme, why they have decided to do so now.
The bitterness felt by the people of Milford Haven is added to by the fact that the pressure stock licences attached to those vessels were recently bought by Irish interests. The vessels were sold back to the receiver for a nominal sum and the licences were re-sold to beam trawlers in the North sea. That means that we not only have no fleet, but we have no locally controlled pressure stock licences with which to regenerate our fishing industry in Pembrokeshire. I hope that the Minister will explain why this significant change of view, welcome though it is, has taken place so late.
Many hon. Members have referred to flags of convenience—ships supposedly owned by British companies but in fact exclusively controlled by Spanish interests. Milford Haven has certainly been experiencing Spanish influence in the past year or two. It may interest hon. Members to know that Spanish interests plan to establish a producer organisation known as the Wales and south-west fish producers organisation, which will effectively be controlled from Corunna, Gijon and elsewhere. The organisation will have 42 vessels, and the idea is basically to secure and control the British quota available in the Irish sea. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the question of how those 42 vessels' operations can effectively be policed. Under the current legislation, they need only call at a British port four times every six months. How will the Minister administer the rules governing the number of days on which they put to sea and fish if they are operating from Spanish ports?
If we are to have conservation, it is vital that there should be a level playing field. It is ludicrous that British seamen should go out and risk their lives playing to a strict set of rules with increased policing—the 60 or 64 man-years in the consultative document and the Bill—while Spanish, French, Belgian and Dutch fleets, and even flag-of-convenience vessels from Panama, fish in our waters but fail to operate under those rules. That is totally unfair and I do not see how the Minister can justify his argument for a unilateral position and rules which the EC as a whole will not enforce.
Before the war, and for the first two decades thereafter, the Milford Haven fishing industry was renowned. We need regulations that people can understand and stability to regenerate our fishing industry. Frankly, the Bill goes nowhere near to achieving that.

Dr. Robert Spink: The Castle Point fishermen are an independent and resourceful people. We have a fleet of about 18 boats. With respect, our fishermen understand as well as anyone in this place that, unless fish stocks are properly conserved, there will be no fish left for them or their children to harvest. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his driving vision to protect the fisheries, but not on the consultation process, which has been too short. My hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot take unlimited powers to stop my constituents from working.
We have about nine boats in the 7-to-10 m range and nine boats in the 10-to-12 m range. Let me give a typical example of a Canvey Island fisherman called Mr. Davis. He is a British registered sole fisherman and an independent owner-skipper with a small boat working in the Thames estuary. He is now allowed to catch only 0.25 tonnes of sole a month. A year ago he had no quota and he caught on average about 0.5 tonnes a month.
Mr. Davis is not a member of a producer organisation and nor does he want to be a member of one even if that is inconvenient for the Ministry. I applaud his independent, self-reliant stand. Why should he be forced to join the club? That would be a restrictive trade practice and, as a Conservative, I have been fighting such practices for many years.
Whenever a boat stops fishing and is decommissioned, the producer organisation can buy that boat's days at sea and quota. That could lead to five factory boats owning 75 per cent. of the United Kingdom sole quota. That would be anti-competitive and it would damage the interests of my independent fishermen.
Mr. Davis fishes for sole and a few eels in summer and for cod when they come up the Thames to spawn in autumn. He fishes for sprats at Christmas. He is basically laid up in February, March and April.
That background is important to understanding the safety point that I raise on behalf of the Holehaven Fishermen's Association. Let me explain why the days-at-sea fishing restrictions would dramatically denigrate their safety, especially on top of the current weight quota. The weather of course is already a severe restriction, particularly for smaller boats such as those of the Castle Point fleet. There is almost a total lack of local harbour facilities, and there are the most severe tidal restrictions around Benfleet creek. In addition, as I explained earlier, the fish are available only on a short seasonal basis and there are no fish at all in some months.
Clearly, there would be pressure on the owner-skippers to go to sea in worse weather conditions than they would attempt without the day restrictions and for them to stay at sea for the full 24-hour allowance on the allotted day. There may be pressure on them to load their boats a little more, and to stay at sea longer and in worse weather than they might choose now.
Our small boats have just one man aboard. What happens if he feels tired? His house is on the line, he has mouths to feed and a mortgage to pay, but his catch is still too small. He may not be allowed to go out again for some days because of the allocation, but by that time the season may have ended and the fish will have gone with it. His living will then also have gone. That is indeed stress.
Our Castle Point small boats are threatened by the Minister's day allocation proposal. That cannot be right or

fair. The increased danger would be intolerable. Castle Point fishermen already risk their lives to feed this nation in one of the most dangerous occupations in this country. I am sure that the Minister will want to find ways to alleviate the problems and to compensate small boat owners properly and perhaps even those below the 10 m threshold.
I should be delighted if the Minister would visit Castle Point and would meet some of our professional independent owner-skippers. They would be the first to applaud his aims to conserve fish and to welcome his appeals system. However, they seek fair play, continued fishing, and proper compensation if they cannot fish. After all, as hon. Members know, it was not my small fleet that stripped the seas of fish; it was the factory ships. Yet the Minister's plans would attack my small independent fleet the most.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The debate has shown that there is deep concern about the Bill. Certainly there has been deep concern about the lack of consultation before the Bill was produced, and about the amount of money allocated for decommissioning purposes. The feeling in the industry is that, as a result, many small fishing companies will go to the wall because they are operating on limited profit margins. The limited time at sea could also have serious implications for safety, especially on small vessels. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to explain how, with limited time at sea, one will be able to do quota management. Clearly that will create problems. Also, how will quota management work in practice?
I represent the port of Hull, which, until about 12 years ago, was the biggest fishing port not only in Britain but in Europe, with a massive distant water fleet. Of course, with the introduction of the Icelandic 200-mile fishing limit and the common fisheries policy in 1983, the fleet side of the industry collapsed with the loss of about 8,000 jobs. Although there were some decommissioning grants, the men received absolutley nothing. With this enabling Bill, which will create many administrative powers, will there be compensation for the men as well as the owners? That did not happen with the collapse of the distant water fleets in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. The men got nothing at all.
We have employment legislation which enables the Government to provide compensation and redundancy payments, but, over the years, the Government have refused to provide compensation or redundancy payments to fishermen because they regard them as casual workers. That must be absurd. People have worked for the same company for 35 years, but the Government regard them as casual. They have contributed to the same pension schemes, but the Government regard them as casual. One of my constituents was presented with a gold watch for being with the same company for 25 years, yet he is regarded as casual.
The Government have introduced time bars. The Department of Employment misled men and told them, "Do not apply for redundancy; you do not qualify because you are casual." We have established that that was wrong and the Government have accepted it. Men have been paying for their national insurance stamps. They also have a system of signing on and off, which again has created great difficulties for them. We have massive injustice.


People want their cases to be heard, and have been trying to get them heard since 1983, but the Government are putting hurdles in their way. Let us have those cases heard.
It is a serious matter. These men are not greedy; they are fighting on a point of principle. They have worked in a most hazardous industry around the banks, Iceland and Norway, in temperatures of minus 30 deg for about 350 days a year, and have made great contributions not only to the food supply but to military intelligence during wars. They are forgotten heroes. The Government have been saying that the only way to deal with those cases is by a series of tribunals. There have been tribunals, but the Government still have not drawn up any guidelines to assess all outstanding cases. We are getting delay, delay and more delay. The system of dispensing justice to the distant water fishermen is failing. The Government are not being fair to these people.
I have no time properly to make my case, but I ask the Under-Secretary to talk to his colleague in the Department of Employment, which is the lead Department in the matter, to see whether there is some way in which under the legislation, which will create several administrative procedures, a linkage can be found to ensure that the fishermen's cases are properly considered. It is wrong that they should be treated in this dreadful way. It would not set any precedents to compensate them. It would not be costly. We are talking about a small number of people.
It is time for action from the Government. I ask the Under-Secretary to have discussions with his counterpart in the Department of Employment on whether some arrangement can be drawn up.

Mr. Brian Wilson: We have had a long debate by fishing standards and a full and representative one. One of the pleasures of this season of Parliament is that we have a fair old geographical tour of Britain in the form of maiden speeches. Tonight has been no exception. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), who made their maiden speeches this evening.
I checked the background of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, who has a Scottish pedigree in her political experience. I noticed from one of the profiles in the Library that normally, according to the Sunday Express, she
fairly bubbles with enthusiasm for Tory achievements".
I thought that it was perhaps a comment on the legislation before us that we did not see that to the full extent today. However, we heard an enjoyable and informative speech. In fairness to the hon. Lady, I should say that the whole House already owes her a considerable debt. I read from the same profile that she
was selected for Hastings and Rye, defeating Peter Bruinvels April '91.
The hon. Member for Ayr is from my neck of the woods. I know him from when he was active in my constituency. He paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, George Younger. I am not sure whether George Younger is in a state of metamorphosis or whether he has already become Lord Younger. We enjoyed the

maiden speech of the hon. Member for Ayr. I am sure that he will make a strong contribution not only to Scottish debates but on the wider issues in which he is involved.
The hon. Member for Scarborough gave an extremely entertaining account of his constituency. I am almost tempted to go there, but also to come back. I became slightly worried when he had been going for 10 minutes and had reached only 1267 but the pace of events accelerated after that. I am sure that many hon. Members who participate in fishing debates will remember with affection his predecessor, Sir Michael Shaw, who made succinct contributions to fishing debates but always spoke well on behalf of his fishing interests.
I remember Sir Michael Shaw particularly because the first major parliamentary activity in which I was involved after being elected in 1987 was the English poll tax legislation. Sir Michael Shaw presided over the Standing Committee. It was a good parliamentary Committee in which to cut one's teeth and he presided over it in a fair and good-humoured way. I am sure that everyone here sends him, Lord Younger and Kenneth Warren best wishes for their respective retirements.
I have been surprised at the strength of opposition to the Bill from all quarters of the House today. As I said, we had a representative mixture of speeches. Every part of England has been represented. We heard the authentic voice of South Down and we heard from Scottish interests. Frankly, no one has said—

Mr. Morley: And Wales.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry. We have also heard speeches from Welsh Opposition Members. However, we have not heard from anyone who was terrifically keen on the legislation. Perhaps that should not have been such a surprise—

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Under-Secretary of State is keen.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, I am told that he is terrifically keen, but that has yet to manifest itself. We wait with interest.
Perhaps we should not have been surprised because the editorial in Fishing News on 29 May summed up the feeling of the fishing industry around our coast, saying:
Not only is the principle of imposing limits on the days a boat can spend at sea without compensation highly questionable, but so too is the practice. Once these powers are in place"—
referring to the Bill—
the government will have a management tool which it will be able to enforce at will … Fishermen's abilities to make their boats pay are already severely compromised by the quota system. Many, rather than go out of business, bend the rules.
A somewhat rare admission in that industry.
Now on top of a quota system which is openly admitted to be a conservation and management failure, fishermen are to have a new constraint which will be 'unbendable'—on top of all the other technical and licensing restrictions.
Those are strong words indeed from Fishing News.

Mr. Curry: Perhaps I may quote a different part of the same editorial:
There are fishermen who are sympathetic to days at sea limitations provided they are applied in a way which is acceptable. They would help to share out the action between more boats, and would be effective as a conservation tool; perhaps the only truly effective one.

Mr. Wilson: I always work on the assumption that no one reads the same editorials that I do, but I am grateful to the Minister for putting a balanced view.
There was genuine surprise in the Chamber as we realised that not only is there to be a limit on days at sea, and all that that principle entails, but it is apparently to be applied on a boat-by-boat basis. From having a word with the Minister outside the Chamber, I know that the system seems to be a hybrid. I do not mean to misrepresent it, but some categories of boat will be taken together and some will be taken separately.
The concerns that have been expressed from all quarters about the sheer bureaucratic entanglements that the Bill will lead to, and the idea of each boat being subject to a separate regime with separate appeals, are fairly frightening.
The explanatory and financial memorandum, in the "Effect of the Bill on Public Sector Manpower", states:
Restricting days at sea for some 3,800 vessels over 10 metres in length will require a significant increase in enforcement posts.
They can say that again.
I was in the Committee of a major Scottish Bill, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, today. To their great credit, the Conservatives are nationalising the bankruptcy process in Scotland and creating 400 extra civil service jobs. That is very commendable. The Government seem determined to increase the public sector. I am tempted to combine the two measures. As we understand it, the sheer difficulties of enforcement involved in the Bill are worrying and they will have to be debated and explained further.
No one likes the idea of attaching a days-at-sea stipulation to a decommissioning scheme and making it a trade-off of one against the other, but if it is to exist and to command respect there must be minimum criteria of comprehensibility, non-bureaucracy, so far as that is possible, and even-handedness. From what we have heard today, it is far from clear whether any of those criteria will apply.
I am strongly attracted to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who called into question the effectiveness of the quota and tie-up regime. None of the artificial measures, which seem constantly to be piled one upon another, come up with a solution, the problem being that there is too much catching power in the industry. We shall not have time tonight, but we ought to examine the issue in a more fundamental way.

Ms. Mowlam: My hon. Friend will realise that the enforcement of the days-at-sea rule is of particular concern to ports such as that in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Minister of State may giggle, but the boats in Redcar are as important as those in bigger ports—and people depend on them for work. There is concern about how the appeal procedure will work in the case of just a few boats affected by particular weather and beach-launching conditions. Will my hon. Friend urge the Minister to examine that aspect?

Mr. Wilson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's point, which is germane to my next argument. My slight knowledge of the industry centres far more on the smaller and weaker ports than on the great capital-intensive centres. That is the reason for my concern about the proposal that producers' organisations should engage in the purchase of TAC records. That is disturbingly similar

to the proposals for individual transferable quotas, which the industry largely opposes—as did the Government, previously.
Quotas will be sold only within the producer organisations and can then be added to the existing quotas of other vessels. If they are lost to a port because fishermen are looking for a financial escape hatch out of the industry, that will be to the disadvantage of smaller fishing communities. Fishing effort would not, however, be reduced—because such quotas would be transferred to larger and stronger ports. Many owners are only too willing to enhance their quotas by purchasing additions through their producer organisation.
That happened before, when pressure stock licences from the weaker ports ended up in the larger ports. Some fishing communities may have 20 or 30 vessels working out of them. If, by some device, two or three of those rights to fish are lost, that means a loss of 10 per cent. of that local industry and its jobs, and of the viability of the on-shore jobs which depend on them. I deplore any system based on financial incentives to transfer parts of the existing industry from small fishing communities to the largest and most powerful communities.
The one-net rule is another adjunct of the Bill. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the need to have a Queen's counsel on board to enable fishermen to keep abreast of the remarkably complex laws that they must observe. Perhaps that is a job for the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who could don his wellies on his day off and charge his usual fees.
One must consider also the effect of the one-net rule on by-catches, and the breakdown into target species, quota species, and non-quota species. There will be a percentage of each fixed, and a vessel would not be permitted to catch too much of one species or too little of another. It might help to have a mathematician on board as well as a QC.
It is impossible for any industry to operate under such detailed conditions. When the Scottish Fishermen's Federation responded to the one-net proposal, it made it clear to the Government that the only basis on which its membership would comtemplate acceptance was as the forerunner to the introduction of a Community-wide one-net rule promoted by the British Government. What are the Government doing in that regard?
The federation also argued that the by-catch rules governing the use of a 70 mm net in prawn fisheries, which currently allow 60 per cent. of the total catch to be taken as protected species, should be relaxed, so that haddock and whiting would be counted against that limit, and all other protected species excluded.
In that context, we have heard of the problems of the Western Isles fishermen, which also apply to other similar fishing communities. Those fishermen are in a special position. In order to carry on their traditional livelihood, their boats have worked for prawns and white fish. For 30 years, prawns have been the mainstay of the Scottish west coast fisheries, but the white fish fishery has also been important. The fishermen go to sea in boats carrying nets for both types of fishing and they prosecute both fisheries. They cannot return to port and exchange those nets at the drop of a hat as the Bill would compel them to do. They operate a conservation-conscious fishery, so why, in heaven's name, is the might of the Government and the European Commission directed against that type of operation? That is beyond my wit, and I have enough


respect for the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to believe that it is beyond his comprehension as well.
I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) was speaking the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was in his place and I think that he was taking some notes on possible derogations. A sledgehammer must not be used to crack a nut in order to enforce the generality of the Bill. It is ridiculous that people who are doing no harm whatever in conservation terms should also be caught up by the Bill.
In his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the Bill as being a form of subsidiarity. I believe in real subsidiarity. As I understand it, the point of it is to take decision-making down to the lowest convenient level. That is a great idea. Why do the Government not go for regional management of fishing stocks? As we have heard from Conservative Members, we have many different fisheries round the coasts of Britain. There is no such thing as a British or Scottish fishing industry—these are generic terms. Different areas have different interests and different types of fishery. There is a need for fisheries to be managed at a local level and for sensible exemptions and sensible measures to be introduced, including, for example the sensible protection of the fisheries in the south-west against incursions from outside fleets. Let us have a system of regional fishery management because we would then have a more sensitive and intelligent approach to the management of fisheries.
I want to raise two specific points. The first has already been raised, but I must press the Minister for a more straightforward account of what transpired at Stornoway sheriff court last week. If no appeal is intended, the matter cannot be sub judice. Will the Minister recognise that it is a matter of widespread interest? Will he put aside the slight coyness that he revealed earlier and tell us in non-recriminatory and simple terms whether something went wrong and what the implications will be? It has been pointed out that there was a similar judgment to last week's in 1983, so it is reasonable to ask whether anything has been done since 1983 or whether the 1983 judgment was also wrong and irrelevant. I hope that the Minister will help the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles, on that.
The second point refers to the well-known fact that the Panamanian registered and unlicensed Spanish-crewed vessel which was caught off Rockall with 60 tonnes of monkfish on board was carrying monofilament nets. Obviously, that vessel found a profitable fishery and thought it worth while to be there along with several other Panamanian registered, Spanish-owned vessels. The absurdity is that if a small fishing boat sets out from a Scottish port—or, I assume, a port in England—with a monofilament net on board, the carriage of such a net would in itself be an offence. Everyone on the west coast recognises that there is a promising fishery for monkfish, but it cannot be prosecuted by our own fishermen. The matter is taken to the point of absurdity because, while those vast vessels are fishing for monkfish off Rockall with monofilament nets and are apparently within the law, a fisherman in the port of Mallaig, Nigel Johnston, is being deprived of a livelihood because he was carrying relatively small monofilament nets to prosecute the cray fishery,

which is a much smaller but also perfectly reasonable way for people to earn a living. He is caught up in that mass of red tape.
Will the Minister clarify the Panamanian-Spanish case last week and, given the absurdity that I have highlighted, look again at the question of monofilament nets? It is nonsense and is caught up in the Scottish Office's paranoia that anyone carrying monofilament nets must be fishing for salmon.
Both sides of the House have expressed a high degree of dissatisfaction with the Bill. We do not believe that tabling milk-and-water amendments is the way to deal with it. We shall vote against it tonight, and we invite other parties and all dissenters in the Conservative party to vote with us.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) intends, in effect, to vote against conservation. That is a sad thing to do tonight.
May I join many other hon. Members on both sides of the House in warmly congratulating the three maiden speakers: my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye seems to have most of the important battlefields of England in her constituency and I hope that she does not intend to translate that into the world of fishing. It was delightful to hear what she had to say about her lovely constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough made as racey a speech as we would have expected from his predecessor. We are glad to have him participating in debates on fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr had one of the most remarkable victories of the general election. I warmly support his great efforts in retaining the seat that was so ably represented by George Younger for many years. I cross friendly swords with him over his monopoly of Robert Burns, because my constituency of Dumfries looks after at least the better half. It was good to have him joining in a fishing debate so early in his parliamentary life, particularly because he was constructive over the prawn fishing issue, which is the first of the many points to which I wish to respond.
Prawn fishing is important because prawn conservation, or nephrops conservation, is as important as the conservation of white fish. That is why I have asked the Sea Fish Industry Authority to convene another nephrops forum to decide the right way forward. As hon. Members know, we considered banning nephrops fishing at weekends, but that might have had a catastrophic impact on the processing industry, and I wanted to be clear that we were going in the right direction before imposing such a ban.

Mr. Salmond: I note the enthusiasm with which the Minister greets this first intervention.
The House will probably agree that such a nephrops forum is a good idea and I am sure that the Minister is about to tell us that, pending the decision of such a forum, there will at least be a suspension of unilateral action on the one-net rule. Surely the Minister would not act before listening to the interesting and informative discussion at that forum.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman anticipates much good stuff to follow. I will wait until the one-net rule is in place before saying what is happening.
I was talking about the prawn issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I wish to reply to the points raised both by him and by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the recent court case—a subject on which I intervened briefly earlier. I wish to make it absolutely clear that there is no loophole in the legislation. The case failed on technical grounds which is why we are not appealing against the judgment. We are perfectly confident that, were there to be a further breach by a Panamanian or other foreign vessel, we would have sufficient powers to take action. I hope that if we have to do so and there is sufficient evidence, we shall win the court case.

Mr. Macdonald: I am not entirely clear on what the Minister said about the case having failed on technicalities. If the same technical reasons caused the case to fail in 1983, why was that not made clear so that another case of the same sort was not instigated?

Sir Hector Monro: One has to accept that there was a lack of continuity of information. I am sorry that the case proceeded as it did, and I am now stating clearly that in future we shall have the necessary powers. Fishermen in Western Isles and elsewhere can be confident that we will be successful in any future prosecutions.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I have only 14 minutes left and I have made it absolutely clear, even to a Queen's counsel, what the position is—

Mr. Campbell: Even on a legal point?

Sir Hector Monro: That is the worst sort.
I was flattered to hear so many quotes from my previous speeches. An important theme in the speeches of those disinclined to support conservation measures was to ask why the United Kingdom should be hit when the rest of the Community was not. We must accept that we have by far the largest share of fishing effort in the Community, so we must be in the forefront of conservation. Our partners are active; many of them are carrying out the same measures as we are and some are a great deal nearer their multi-annual guidance programme targets than we are. I know that that subject will be discussed in Luxembourg tomorrow.
The Community has given all its members clear advice that they must have tough conservation measures in the coming three or four years and monitor how they develop. We must have a combination of measures, and we are pressing all our partners to be as strict as we are—Commissioner Marin is currently being forceful on that issue. It is right that we should take those measures seriously, and employ observers. That is why so many aircraft and ships are carrying out surveillance. That is the only way that we can fully implement the policies that we have outlined.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) knows, the aircraft of both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland are run by

commercial companies. However, we are considering all alternative methods of running our ships and no decision has been taken—I can give that firm commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) was very concerned about discrimination against United Kingdom fishermen. Effort reduction will be a major contribution to meeting the MAGP target, which we must negotiate with the Commission later this year. All other member states will also have to meet their targets by taking action, but they may opt for different measures.

Mr. Morley: Was not the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) making a point made by many other hon. Members who have spoken today? Many ports, such as Whitehaven and Maryport, have fleets that are being tied up in port. They are already stretched to the limit, because other member states have met their targets by means of proper decommissioning and, although we have the same opportunity, the Government refuse to take advantage of the 70 per cent. finance offered by the EC.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Comparatively few fleets are tied up at any one time. The 135-day limit, which was set only after the most careful consultations with our scientists, is for conservation reasons.
I wish that all hon. Members would accept that the Government do not want the regulations and bureaucracy that some have described. I know that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would confirm that our wish and duty is to help the fishing industry in every possible way. We want the industry to be profitable, so that the housewife can benefit from the best possible service. We certainly do not want to persecute the fishing industry, as some hon. Members seem to believe.

Mr. Moate: It is reassuring to hear my hon. Friend repeat that the Government have no wish to pursue unnecessary regulation. Does he accept, however, that a slight contradiction is involved? The Bill gives the Government power to impose the days-at-sea regulations on the under-10 m fleet, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier that they did not intend to do so. Meanwhile, Ministry officials are giving the impression that it is inevitable for such controls to apply to the under-10 m fleet. Will my hon. Friend at least give us an assurance that he will be open-minded in Committee about amendments clarifying the matter? I gladly volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee.

Sir Hector Monro: That is duty.
I agree that we must be clear about the under-10 m fleet. Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), seem to have been misinformed. There is no restriction on those ships; the only difference between them and the rest of the fleet is the fact that they are not eligible for decommissioning. They can go to sea when they like, regardless of the weather.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed great concern about bad weather and the 135-day restriction. When we deal with that, and with licensing, we shall consider carefully track records and days at sea, including the days that ships have spent steaming from market ports to home ports in 1991. If they have been


caught out a number of times, or have been carrying out repairs, that will be taken into account. We are being as flexible as we can be.
The hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised the issue of the one-net rule. That demonstrates the advantages of consultation. We shall consider carefully all the issues that have been raised by those fishermen who will be affected by the one-net rule and see what steps can be taken to remove their concern. At the beginning of the debate my hon. Friend the Minister said that we shall have to bear in mind that that is a European Community regulation.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked when we were going to deal with the issue. The answer is, tomorrow. We shall consider many of these issues tomorrow in Luxembourg.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about the Shetland box. Bearing in mind the difficulties that we previously encountered over obtaining the Shetland box, we are anxious to retain the present position. We do not intend to allow any change to the box to be made during our European Community consultations.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister has apparently made a concession on the one-net rule, but will he confirm that while a change in the by-catch arrangement is a matter for the Community, the unilateral imposition of the one-net rule, which has already happened, is purely a matter for him? The Minister ought to announce a delay in the imposition of the one-net rule this evening.

Sir Hector Monro: I have not made any concession. What I said was that I am considering the matter, bearing in mind the very great discussions that we have had during the last week or two with the fishermen and the fact that we shall be in Luxembourg tomorrow when there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter further.
I want to make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that we feel that the Shetland issue is very important and that it is important to meet the Shetlanders to discuss their fishing industry with them.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) asked about the increase in maximum fines in clause 3. The increase is from £5,000 to £50,000. Perhaps that is small beer to him, but it is very important to us.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked a number of questions, in particular why we are not introducing more technical measures. We have already made it clear that nearly all the measures that will be taken as a result of the Bill, as well as all the announcements that we have made this year, are technical measures. That is why it is difficult to understand what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have gone beyond the Community package, as announced on 12 May, by introducing additional measures on a national basis. They are all intended to help to conserve fish stocks. Until stocks of white fish increase, we need to continue with what seems to be a very tough line. However, it is in the interests of fishermen. These measures will help them in the long run.
There is an urgent need to tackle the pressing problems that threaten the fishing industry. To reduce fishing effort is crucial to the long-term interests of our fishermen, as well as to fish stocks. Decisive and early action is required. That is what we are delivering. Our package is a careful combination of payments to the industry and encouragement to voluntary action and regulation. The Government are making a very substantial and clear commitment. That is highlighted by the decommissioning scheme, about which I have not had sufficient time to talk this evening. [Interruption.] It is a very important issue. The fact that the sum of £25 million is derided by the Opposition shows that they do not live in the real world when it comes to finance. The industry is being asked to play its part. Together with the implementation of this package, I believe that we have the means to secure real conservation benefits in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 218.

Division No. 22]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McGrady, Eddie


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Salmond, Alex


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harvey, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Johnston, Sir Russell



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Lynne, Ms Liz
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Congdon, David


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Couchman, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Niranjan


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Burns, Simon
Emery, Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Faber, David


Carrington, Matthew
Fabricant, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fishburn, John Dudley


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Chapman, Sydney
Forth, Eric


Clappison, James
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)






Freeman, Roger
Page, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Fry, Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Gallie, Philip
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Gardiner, Sir George
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gorst, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Powell, William (Corby)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Richards, Rod


Grylls, Sir Michael
Riddick, Graham


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Harris, David
Sackville, Tom


Haselhurst, Alan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hawkins, Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hayes, Jerry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Heald, Oliver
Shersby, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sims, Roger


Hendry, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Speed, Keith


Horam, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spring, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sproat, Iain


Hunter, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jessel, Toby
Stephen, Michael


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Stewart, Allan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Streeter, Gary


Kilfedder, James
Sumberg, David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sweeney, Walter


Knapman, Roger
Sykes, John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thomason, Roy


Lait, Ms Jacqui
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thurnham, Peter


Legg, Barry
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Trimble, David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Luff, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


MacKay, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Walden, George


Malone, Gerald
Waller, Gary


Mans, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Watts, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wheeler, Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Whittingdale, John


Milligan, Stephen
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Willetts, David


Moate, Roger
Wilshire, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Yeo, Tim


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tellers for the Noes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. David Lightbown and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on second or third reading:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 187.

Division No. 23]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
French, Douglas


Amess, David
Fry, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Gallie, Phil


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorst, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Batiste, Spencer
Hague, William


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Booth, Hartley
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boswell, Tim
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hawkins, Nick


Bowis, John
Hawksley, Warren


Brandreth, Gyles
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hendry, Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Burns, Simon
Horam, John


Burt, Alistair
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Butler, Peter
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Jenkin, Bernard


Carttiss, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Kilfedder, James


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clappison, James
Knapman, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Colvin, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Congdon, David
Lait, Ms Jacqui


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Legg, Barry


Couchman, James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Cran, James
Lidington, David


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Lightbown, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Day, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Luff, Peter


Devlin, Tim
MacKay, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dorrell, Stephen
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Duncan, Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunn, Bob
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dykes, Hugh
Merchant, Piers


Eggar, Tim
Milligan, Stephen


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Moate, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Monro, Sir Hector


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Faber, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Fishburn, John Dudley
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Paice, James


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Patnick, Irvine






Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sumberg, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sweeney, Walter


Pickles, Eric
Sykes, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Richards, Rod
Thomason, Roy


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark(Somerton)
Trend, Michael


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Trotter, Neville


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walden, George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Watts, John


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wheeler, Sir John


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wilshire, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sproat, Iain
Yeo Tim


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Young Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Allan
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Streeter, Gary
Mr. David Davies.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Ainger, Nicholas
Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Darling, Alistair


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Battle, John
Dobson, Frank


Bayley, Hugh
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bennett, Andrew F.
Eastham, Ken


Benton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Etherington, William


Berry, Roger
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Blunkett, David
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyce, Jimmy
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Bradley, Keith
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cann, James
Grocott, Bruce


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gunnell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harris, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Harvey, Nick


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Hoon, Geoff


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)





Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Patchett, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L.


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Johnston, Sir Russell
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prescott, John


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Redmond, Martin


Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roche, Ms Barbara


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Salmond, Alex


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Litherland, Robert
Simpson, Alan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacDonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McGrady, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Alice
Tipping, Paddy


Mandelson, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wise, Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri



Morley, Elliot
Tellers for the Noes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Mudie, George
Mrs. Llin Golding.


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Wallace.]

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 208.

Division Number 24]
[10.255 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Byers, Stephen


Ainger, Nicholas
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Callaghan, Jim


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Cann, James


Bayley, Hugh
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Beckett, Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beith, A. J.
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Boateng, Paul
Coffey, Ms Ann


Boyce, Jimmy
Connarty, Michael


Boyes, Roland
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cryer, Bob






Darling, Alistair
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dowd, Jim
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Enright, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Morley, Elliot


Foulkes, George
Mudie, George


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


George, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Neill, Martin


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pendry, Tom


Gunnell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hanson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harvey, Nick
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hepple, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Purchase, Ken


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roche, Ms Barbara


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Salmond, Alex


Hume, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hutton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Illsley, Eric
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Ingram, Adam
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jamieson, David
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Tipping, paddy


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Turner, Dennis


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Tyler, Paul


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C &amp; S)
Wareing, Robert N


Khabra, Piara
Watson, Mike


Leighton, Ron
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wise, Audrey


Lynne, Ms Liz



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacDonald, Calum
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. James Wallace


McMaster, Gordon





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cartiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bellingham, Henry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coe, Sebastian


Booth, Hartley
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Congdon, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Couchman, James


Brazier, Julian
Cran, James


Bright, Graham
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Day, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Burt, Alistair
Devlin, Tim





Dickens, Geoffrey
Merchant, Piers


Dorrell, Stephen
Milligan, Stephen


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Moate, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Dunn, Bob
Moss, Malcolm


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Sir Michael


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Elletson, Harold
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Norris, Steve


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fishburn, John Dudley
Pickles, Eric


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Forth, Eric
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Powell, William (Corby)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Richards, Rod


Freeman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


French, Douglas
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Fry, Peter
Robathan, Andrew


Gallie, Philip
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gorst, John
Sackville, Tom


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hague, William
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Sims, Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hampson, Dr Keith
Soames, Nicholas


Hargreaves, Andrew
Speed, Keith


Harris, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Haselhurst, Alan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hawkins, Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


Hawksley, Warren
Spring, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Sproat, Iain


Heald, Oliver
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stephen, Michael


Hendry, Charles
Stewart, Allan


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Streeter, Gary


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Sumberg, David


Horam, John
Sweeney, Walter


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sykes, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Jenkin, Bernard
Thomason, Roy


Jessel, Toby
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kilfedder, James
Thurnham, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knapman, Roger
Trend, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Viggers, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Walden, George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waller, Gary


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Ivan
Watts, John


Legg, Barry
Wells, Bowen


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Wheeler, Sir John


Lidington, David
Whittingdale, John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


MacKay, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Yeo, Tim


Malone, Gerald
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mans, Keith



Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown under any other enactment.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Statutory Instruments, &c

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Motions on two statutory instruments—items No. 3 and 4 on the Order Paper—are to be taken forthwith. I draw your attention to item No. 4 in respect of which it is said:
The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Committee was not formed, by resolution of the House, until last Friday. As the Committee meets tomorrow for the first time this Session, it is wrong that an order should be passed by the House without the necessary consideration. There can be no justification for the Government moving the order tonight because it does not come into force until 1 July—I have a copy here.
Therefore, the Government should not move item No. 4 so that the Committee may have time to consider the order and to draw to the attention of the House, under the terms of the Standing Order, any defects in the instrument. If the order is moved tonight, the Government will be deliberately flouting the wishes of the House by appointing people to a Committee but preventing them from carrying out the job that the House has given to them. I hope that the Government will not move item No. 4.

Madam Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, but the instruments are in good order. The Government are prepared to move them, and so I have to put the Question on them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Anatomy (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd March, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Building Societies (Member States) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.—[Mr. Mackay.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Aung San Suu Kyi

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wish to present a petition, signed by 600 people, calling for the release from house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been held in virtual isolation for the past three years at her home in Rangoon. The petition reads:
That human rights continue to be violated in Burma (Union of Myanmar) as evidenced by the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and the detention of other prisoners of conscience.
Wherefore your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to continue the international pressure to secure the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other Burmese prisoners of conscience.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Trafford Park

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The bulk of the Trafford park estate is in my constituency, and for those of us who grew up in Manchester, it was once a symbol of the north-west's manufacturing strength. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) spent much of his working life with the company formerly known as Metrovic, later GEC—and that industrial upbringing was a valuable part of the area's economic and cultural strength. Many of those who have passed through the doors of the House served part of their industrial and political time in Trafford park.
It is a considerable tragedy to have witnessed the steady erosion of the area's employment, skills, and industrial base. Matters looked particularly bad up to the time when I first entered the House. I remember having several exchanges with Ministers at that time about the needs of the Trafford park area. That led ultimately to the creation of the urban development corporation. As I urged that upon Ministers, it would have been churlish to do anything other than support the Government's creation of that particular corporation.
Together with many other people in the area, I have done what I can to support the corporation's efforts to bring jobs and industry to Trafford park. That said, although it may have seemed, when the corporation first came into being, that Trafford had turned the industrial corner, the recession of the past few years has seen a haemorrhaging of jobs. Today's debate has largely been prompted by the almost simultaneous loss of 1,000 jobs by four major employers—Texaco, Massey-Ferguson, the Co-op, and GEC.
Every one of those job losses is a tragedy, but I will dwell on GEC—formerly Metrovic—because it was once the biggest employer in the Trafford park area. As a training ground for young apprentices, it was reckoned to be among the finest in the world. For GEC to announce virtually the end of turbine manufacture there is viewed by many—myself included—as a betrayal of GEC's background and of the community which put so much into that company. I hope that those words reach the company, and that it appreciates the strength of feeling about the way it has treated the area.
Trafford park and the Manchester travel-to-work area have seen 7,703 redundancies in the 12 months from 1 June 1991 to 31 May this year, while Greater Manchester has suffered job losses totalling well over 13,000—an increase over the previous year. Far from the recession coming to an end in Greater Manchester, it is deepening.
The jobs being lost are largely those which contribute to my constituency and to those of other hon. Members the skills network which is so vital to a modern economy. We have seen massive job losses in electrical and mechanical engineering, and in the manufacture of transport equipment. Those are all industries vital to the industrial strength and future not only of the north-west but of the whole country.
In the years since the economy started turning against the manufacturing sector, we have had a Government who are hostile, or at least indifferent, to its plight. The pound has ridden at ridiculously high levels on the international

currency exchanges, making exports of our manufactures unrealistic. Interest rates have reached record levels, which again makes it extremely difficult to invest. The rate of investment in industry and manufacturing bears that out, and investment in manufacturing in the north-west has fallen greatly.
The net consequence of that lack of investment has been a loss of jobs and an erosion of the skills base. The level of unemployment in my constituency has almost returned to that reached in the first recession under the Conservative Government of the early 1980s. It is no surprise that the increase has been marked by a similar massive increase in crime. Crime is often part of the black economy into which our young people are siphoned off due to lack of training opportunities or adequate jobs. My constituency is home to the centre of the drugs trade in the north-west. That is a source of great regret to me and I would far sooner see my young people employed at Trafford park.
Last week I received a letter from a constituent—it is typical of many—who wrote:
Yet another letter about the recession 1 am afraid. I am only 51 and find it very hard to find work and have been out of work apart from some casual work for 18 months due to redundancy and I feel that in some cases this is an act of discrimination due to my age etc. as I am a young and active chap. I feel hitter at times
My constituent, in common with many people, wants secure employment. Such people once had the economic security which meant that they and their families had a future. Because of redundancy, the recession and mass unemployment, those people are now not only out of work but without hope and living in despair.

Mr. Ken Eastham: This is almost a debate about despair. The Trafford park industrial estate served all Manchester, including Bury and Bolton. GEC was the traditional centre of great skills. We are told that there is a national shortage of skilled people, but they have been dissipated. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the amalgamation between GEC and Alsthom, which is causing great concern? It is feared that, because of that amalgamation, jobs will go to France. It is possibly because of the management —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his intervention is far too long, especially in a short Adjournment debate.

Mr. Eastham: I apologise. This is an important debate about an issue of great concern. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to underline my—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has touched upon an issue with which I have considerable sympathy.
It is significant that Texaco and Massey-Ferguson have decided to retrench their activities in different parts of the country. As my hon. Friend said, GEC is now an Anglo-French company. There is a strong suspicion that the order book for France is full, while that for Britain is relatively empty. I accept that a limited number of jobs will be retained in Britain for a few years, but the effective closure of the turbine manufacturing plant in Trafford park is, in part, due to the internationalisation of GEC and the fact that the French always make sure that they protect


their domestic industry. The French have an active policy of supporting investment and have a product purchasing policy which favours the home industrial base. GEC saw virtually no new orders of turbines from the previously state-owned Central Electricity Generating Board or its successor company after privatisation.
The same applies to a company in my constituency. Another part of GEC is responsible for the manufacture of traction—railway engines and so on. Once again, the lack of home demand over the years has meant that GEC Traction has suffered unfair competition relative to other international producers. Nowadays large-scale engineering is increasingly carried out on an international basis by major international consortia such as GEC Alsthom in Manchester, Siemens and Braun Bovary. Those are all large international producers and, except for the British companies, all have support from their Governments and home economies, so they at least have an opportunity to invest in research and development knowing that their home base will generate the demand which justifies such investment. In Britain, almost uniquely, such investment does not take place because the Department of Trade and Industry does not sponsor our domestic producers. That is a matter of considerable regret, not just to Opposition Members but to many people throughout our manufacturing sector. We need the Government to take a different view of the manufacturing sector.
I appreciate why the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is here tonight. Industry debates could be answered by Ministers from many different Departments. We want the Government to take a co-ordinated approach to the manufacturing sector. It is not enough simply to invest in a development corporation which, although it will do what it can, can do nothing about the recession which is still laying sway to industry throughout the land. Indeed, confronted with recent job losses, the development corporation said that it was trying to take various steps. It claimed, for instance, that it was trying to create 1,600 jobs on the Massey-Ferguson site. Those jobs may come to fruition in the future, but jobs have disappeared here and now. The development corporation made it clear that the recession was having a detrimental effect on its efforts in the area. Sponsored by the Department of the Environment, the development corporation is not enough of itself.
I hope that the presence of a former Secretary of State for the Environment in the Board of Trade means that we shall begin to have a co-ordinated approach between the different Government Departments. We need a clear message from the Minister today, not just to Trafford park but to the whole of the manufacturing sector, that the days are over when the former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, said that manufacturing was all about the sunset industries and that Britain was looking to a brave new future of services. The Minister must assure us that such political rhetoric and economic nonsense is a thing of the past and that the Government will target the manfacturing sector as the most important part of Britain's economic future. Unless the Government work in that spirit, the problems that I have outlined in Manchester will continue and many of the productive centres of Britain will continue to see devastation and waste.
Beyond a commitment to the manfacturing sector, we need a commitment to policies which will give manufacturing a chance. For instance, we need a Government who support exports. There are certain problems with export credit guarantees. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on those tonight, but I hope that he will take the matter on board and convey the problems to colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry who can deal with it. Our exporters certainly feel hobbled by the problems that they face with the Export Credits Guarantee Department when they compare their position to that of exporters in similar industrialised countries.
We need a Government who will place emphasis on investment in manufacturing. Manufacturing in my area has been cut back dramatically. The Government must make such investment worth while. Until interest rates come down, it is unrealistic to believe that manufacturing investment will race forward, but the Government must sponsor those who are prepared to invest in the manufacturing sector and ensure that that investment leads to the creation of new, highly skilled jobs.
The tragedy of what has happened in Trafford park in recent years is that highly skilled, high value jobs which used to be at the heart of the region have been replaced with relatively semi-skilled and unskilled jobs. I do not complain about any job that is created, but we must begin to retrain all our people, not merely those in selective parts of the country, if we are to give them the dignity that they deserve. We must begin to turn the corner. At present, many of our young people have no hope of employment or, even if they have, they believe that there is no long-term Government commitment to it. Without any commitment to invest in training our young people, the future for districts such as mine is bleak.
I hope that the Minister can give some words of comfort tonight. I hope that I have not spoken in a partisan manner, although I obviously had some criticisms to make. I hope that, in turn, the Minister will respond by making it clear that the Government are committed to the Trafford park district, to manufacturing industry and to a future for my constituents which will bring them long-term jobs and rewards.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on securing tonight's debate. I notice that he is supported by the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) and for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). I fully understand the concerns and needs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stretford, and his commitment to them.
The Government accept that job losses have occurred in Trafford park and that the unemployment rate in the Manchester travel-to-work district is higher than any of us would wish it to be. However, without wishing to minimise the problems—no Government Member wants to do that —I note that the rise in unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency during the past two years has been less than in the north-west region as a whole, where the rise has been less than in the rest of the United Kingdom.


There is no doubt that unemployment is not just a matter for local or even national concern: it is an international problem. More than 15.75 million people are currently unemployed in the 12 countries of the European Community. In the latest three-month period, unemployment has risen in all EC countries except Germany. In France it has reached its highest level ever, and it is also a problem outside the Community—the United States of America has its highest unemployment rate for five years.
However, although as in those other countries the United Kingdom's unemployment level is increasing, there are clear signs that the rate at which it is rising is diminishing. The average increase in the three months to April was the lowest since the three months to September 1990.
There are also grounds for cautious optimism in the wider economy. Surveys conducted over recent weeks show increasing confidence among consumers and businesses. The prices of goods leaving the factory gates are at their lowest for four years.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a co-ordinated approach. There is a co-ordinated approach throughout the Government. It is important not only to create the right climate, but to ensure that interest rates are reduced. Since we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990 there has been a 5 per cent. decrease in interest rates. There is a co-ordinated approach, not just from the Department of Employment or the Department of Trade and Industry, but from Treasury.
I fully realise that the job cuts announced by Massey-Ferguson, GEC and the other companies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman will be a loss to the Trafford park district. As in almost all cases where workers stand to lose their jobs, I am sure that there are arguments, some more valid than others, that can be mounted against the cuts. Ultimately, such decisions are for the commercial judgment of the companies involved. It would be counterproductive for the Government to interfere. It is relevant that neither set of job losses is to take place immediately, and the companies have offered considerable help to their employees, including the chance to move to other parts of the country—although I realise that that option does not suit everyone. I understand that the local employment service is in touch with the companies and with Texaco, and is offering help—although I stress that the majority of the job losses have not yet occurred.
It would be wrong, however, to allow the impression to gain ground that all is doom and gloom. Far from it. The job losses are by no means the full picture. There is a brighter side. New investment is being attracted to the area, and jobs are being created. In particular, I wish to highlight the work of the Trafford Park development corporation, one of the 10 urban development corporations in England and Wales that aim to encourage investment and bring derelict land and buildings into effective use. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stretford pay tribute to the vast amount of work that the corporation has done, and I hope that co-operation spreads across all parties in the Manchester area.
A survey commissioned by the Trafford Park development corporation has shown that, in its five years of operation, 460 new companies have located their business in Trafford park, and that in the same period an additional 9,500 jobs have been created—an increase of nearly 40 per cent. on the 1987 figure. That is particularly

encouraging, as is the fact that the highest level of employment in Trafford park is in the engineering sector and 48 per cent. of all employees are in manufacturing.
I readily accept what has been said about the importance of manufacturing; I also accept that there is a need to ensure that skills and training play a vital part in industry. That, however, is part of a wider debate, and we do not have time to discuss it fully tonight. Perhaps we shall be able to do so tomorrow.
Two noteworthy investments in Trafford park should be recorded—no doubt the hon. Member for Stretford and his hon. Friends are familiar with them. I refer to Proctor and Gamble's multi-million pound development, which will create 250 new jobs, and British Rail's choice of Trafford park for its £11 million channel tunnel freight terminal, which could create up to 4,000 jobs in the area. Those are substantial investments, which are important to the future of the Manchester area.
I also note that the development corporation has recently announced a package of planning permissions and investment decisions, which should create 1,600 jobs, as well as possible construction jobs. Moreover, although they are not in his constituency, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome some of the other major developments in the Manchester area. They include the new metro supertram system, which is now operational and has created over 100 jobs—and which was funded by the Government; the airport's second international terminal, which will double its capacity; and the attractive leisure and office developments at Salford quays.
I am sure that we all welcome the decision to provide £55 million to support Manchester's bid for the Olympic games in the year 2000. It will be used to provide an Olympic arena and other sports facilities. If, as we all hope, Manchester's bid is successful, there will be a wealth of opportunities for new employment.
Despite those successes in creating jobs in the area, there are—and will continue to be—unemployed people who need help. The Government are now providing a wide and versatile range of help for such people, much of which is channelled through the employment services and the training and enterprise councils—or TECs, as they are more familiarly known. Our overall aim is to provide help which is tailored to the individual and meets his or her needs, and which enables such people to find the most suitable employment—including self-employment—as quickly as possible.
All newly unemployed people are offered positive help on the road back to employment by the employment service's new client advisers. Such help includes news of the availability of vacancies, alternative employment, training opportunities and employment service initiatives. The adviser also helps such people to draw up a back-to-work plan that charts the best course of action to enable that person to get back to work.
Those who have not found work within 13 weeks are offered further interviews and help. In the year ending March 1992, in the Manchester central employment service area—which covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Stretford—nearly 64,000 such interviews with claimant advisers took place. Those interviews have helped over 8,300 people to find jobs or other positive outcomes, such as training or job clubs. I think it important to address training and retraining, and to provide opportunities for people to take advantage of those facilities.

Mr. Eastham: We are grateful for any innovations, but certain established industries in Trafford park, such as traction, are not being used. The Minister referred to the success of Metrolink, but some of the work was done in Milan and one wonders why it was not possible to do it in this country.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further than I wish to go now. He ought to address that question to the people who were responsible for constructing the supertram. He should ask them why they did not feel that it was either possible or right to buy British products. I accept that it is a relevant question, but I cannot answer it this evening.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I do not wish to be diverted down this path, but I shall obviously give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lloyd: The traction for Metrolink was made in Trafford park. I should hate the public to be under any illusions about that.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is why I do not want to go down that path now. There are wider questions, to which the hon. Member for Blackley referred.
As for the services that are in place to try to help people to find jobs and to help those who are unemployed, we have job clubs, job interview guarantees, job review workshops, job search seminars and other employment service initiatives to help the unemployed to identify employment and training opportunities. They are all available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to people elsewhere in the Manchester area.
The full range of the Government's training and enterprise programmes are also available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, including the youth training scheme for 16 and 17-year-olds, employment training and employment action for unemployed adults, and help in some cases with business start-ups.
The training and enterprise measures are delivered through the Manchester training and enterprise council, one of the 82 training and enterprise councils now fully

operational in England and Wales. The successful completion of the network means that we now have in place an unprecedented partnership of Government, business and individuals, with over 1,200 front rank business leaders across the country serving on their local TECs. All that is backed by more than £2 billion of Government funding. We believe that this partnership is the best way to skill Britain for the 1990s and beyond.
We are taking the provision of skill training and the encouragement of skills very seriously. However, the sole purpose of the TECs should not be thought to be the delivery of Government programmes, important though that is; they have a much wider role. For example, as part of its objectives concerning training for the adult unemployed, Manchester TEC has a number of local, specially tailored initiatives. Skillplan is a guidance, assessment and referral service for unemployed people. Skillplan operates through 12 main sites and on an outreach basis through selected jobcentres.
Manchester TEC is also collaborating in a project in Trafford park aimed at improving employment and training prospects for ethnic minority women. This initiative stems from the fact that there is very low take-up of adult training provision among Asian women. The idea of providing a series of courses prior to taking up employment training or prior to a job itself was the idea of a member of the Asian community.
Another idea that Manchester TEC is pursuing is Manchester TEC/1000. This is another locally grown initiative, aimed at improving the training and employment prospects of 1,000 disadvantaged people, many of them living in areas of social and economic deprivation. There are two promoters for Manchester TEC/1000 in Old Trafford and one in Partington. They have already arranged training, employment, or referrals for 40 of the 124 individuals who have approached them for help in the last six months. I am sure that people welcome these initiatives, because they are important.
In conclusion—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half and hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.